Opinion ID: 2450547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Airport Zoning Commission under K.S.A. 3-705(2)

Text: The first sentence of K.S.A. 3-307e grants an airport zoning commission (here, the Airport Commission) the power defined in K.S.A. 3-705(2). Article 7 of chapter 3 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated relates to airport hazards. Consequently, the landowners argue the County's decision must be limited to a determination of whether the City's rezoning of the property would create an airport hazard, as defined by K.S.A. 3-701(2) (any structure or tree or use of land which obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking-off at any airport or is otherwise hazardous to such landing or taking-off of aircraft), or airport hazard area, as defined by K.S.A. 3-701(3) (any area of land or water upon which an airport hazard might be established if not prevented as provided in this act). See K.S.A. 3-702 (airport hazards contrary to public interest). As the district court interpreted the County Commissioner's findings, the rezoning of the subject property did not create an airport hazard or an airport hazard area. Consequently, the district court concluded that K.S.A. 3-704(2), which states that the more stringent limitation or requirement as to airport hazards shall govern and prevail, did not apply. However, the district court also rejected the landowners' argument that the County's authority was limited to consideration of a rezoning proposal that would create a hazard. Given that the district court ruled in the County's favor on this question, the County did not appeal this finding. But neither did the landowners, even though, as appellees, they were required to cross-appeal from the adverse ruling in order to obtain appellate review of the issue. See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, 279 Kan. 178, 191-92, 106 P.3d 483 (2005). Raising new issues in a later pleading, such as a docketing statement answer or brief, is insufficient to obtain appellate review. See Board of Meade County Comm'rs v. State Director of Property Valuation, 18 Kan. App.2d 719, 722, 861 P.2d 1348, rev. denied 253 Kan. 856 (1993). Consequently, this question is not preserved for our review.