Court Opinion

ID: 9841430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 14:05:54.092237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:31.299611
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-0829-MR

JERYN LEE AND JAMES COPSY                                          APPELLANTS

                 APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
v.                  HONORABLE JOHN GRISE, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CI-01051

WARREN COUNTY CITY-COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS;
BOWLING GREEN CITY-COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF
WARREN COUNTY, KENTUCKY;
COURTNEY MILLER; AND JETT
MILLER                                                               APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Jeryn Lee and James Copsy appeal from the Warren Circuit

Court’s order affirming the Warren County-City County Board of Adjustments’

(the Board) decision to approve the conditional use permit application of Courtney
and Jett Miller (the Millers) granted by the Bowling Green City-County Planning

Commission of Warren County, Kentucky (the Planning Commission). We affirm.

             The litigation centers around a piece of property located in a rural area

(zoned agricultural) of Warren County. The Millers had purchased the property in

2014 and have used it for their personal residence. In 2021 the Millers applied for

a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a campground on 36.63 acres of the

property. The Millers proposed to erect a maximum of five small cabins, no larger

than 400 square feet each, which would accommodate a total of no more than four

guests each (limited to two adults and two children per cabin). Each cabin would

have two parking spaces, and there would also be an equipment building and

picnic shelter in the enclosure. According to the Millers’ proposal, the entrance

would be from Barren River Road (a state highway), with a private driveway on

the north side of the property to provide access (for kayaking, canoeing, and

fishing) to Barren River. According to the aerial photos attached to the

application, the property included a dense tree population which would serve to

obscure the campground from public view.

             Several area residents filed their opposition to the Millers’ CUP

application. Accordingly, a public hearing was held on August 12, 2022. The

meeting commenced with the staff report, beginning with the CUP proposal, being

read into the record. Next, objections were entertained by the Board. The attorney

                                         -2-
representing the opposition read a summary of the objections; counsel also

tendered the petitions (both on-line and handwritten) with a total of 260 signatures.

The opponents voiced concerns over traffic, noise, trash, decreased water pressure,

and incompatibility with the rural area. They chose to live out of town for the

peace and quiet and were convinced that the campground would have a negative

impact on this lifestyle.

             Jett Miller then addressed the Board. He began by reading a prepared

statement, including the family’s history in Bowling Green. Jett had been a

firefighter with the Bowling Green Fire Department from 2005 until 2020, when he

was forced into retirement because of a work-related injury. He and his wife

purchased the property on Barren River Road in 2014; the farm consisted of over

70 acres. The Millers improved the property and built their home on it. Miller

said that he and his family had also chosen to move to the area for the peace and

quiet. He addressed each of the opponents’ concerns. Miller stated that he would

begin with constructing a single cabin to see if the rest of the project was worth

completing. He also agreed to specific restrictions on the property, including

imposing a noise ordinance beginning at 9:00 p.m. each night.

             At the conclusion of the testimony, the Board voted unanimously (7-

0) in favor of the CUP approval. The Warren Circuit Court affirmed the Board’s

decision on June 27, 2022, and this appeal followed.

                                         -3-
            We begin by stating our standard of review, namely:

                   Judicial review of an administrative decision is
            concerned with whether the action of the agency was
            arbitrary. American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville
            and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 379
            S.W.2d 450, 456 (Ky. 1964). Three grounds exist for
            finding that an agency’s decision was arbitrary: (1) the
            agency acted in excess of its statutory powers, (2) the
            agency did not afford procedural due process, and (3) the
            agency’s decision was not supported by substantial
            evidence. Id.
Baesler v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 237 S.W.3d 209, 212

(Ky. App. 2007).

            Furthermore, we are given specific guidance on reviewing the

propriety of granting a CUP:

                   KRS [Kentucky Revised Statute] 100.237
            authorizes local zoning boards of adjustment to hear and
            decide applications for conditional use permits. A
            “conditional use permit” is an exception within
            Kentucky’s zoning law which allows an applicant to
            undertake a beneficial land use not otherwise permitted
            in a particular zoning district. KRS 100.111(7). The
            local zoning ordinance supplies the standards the board
            of adjustment must follow in determining whether to
            grant or deny a conditional use permit. Hardin County v.
            Jost, 897 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Ky. App. 1995). Typically,
            these standards appear in the zoning ordinance as list of
            acceptable conditional uses that the board of adjustment
            may authorize in particular zones. See Harrison
            Silvergrove Property, LLC v. Campbell County and
            Municipal Board of Adjustment, 492 S.W.3d 908, 913
            (Ky. App. 2016). The applicant is then able to choose
            from the list and apply for a conditional use permit,
            which the board of adjustment may approve, modify, or

                                       -4-
             deny. KRS 100.237. The board of adjustment must,
             however, adhere to fundamental due process
             requirements. See Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v.
             County of Boone, 180 S.W.3d 464, 469 (Ky. 2005) (right
             to a hearing, the taking and weighing of evidence, factual
             findings based on the record, an appropriate order, and a
             judicial review of the administrative action); see also
             Kaelin v. City of Louisville, 643 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Ky.
             1982) (right to cross-examination).

                    In its final form, a conditional use permit consists
             of two parts: (1) a factual determination justifying the
             issuance of a permit; and (2) a statement of conditions
             which the applicant must meet for the use to be
             permitted. KRS 100.111(7). This latter part must be
             recorded in the board of adjustment’s meeting minutes
             “and on the conditional use permit . . . .” KRS
             100.237(1). Once approved, the local administrative
             official issues the conditional use permit. See KRS
             100.111(7).
Drakes Creek Holding Co., LLC v. Franklin-Simpson Cnty. Board of Zoning

Adjustment, 518 S.W.3d 174, 179-80 (Ky. App. 2017).

             With these standards in mind, we address the appellants’ arguments.

Lee and Copsy first claim that the circuit court erred in affirming the Board’s

findings of fact which appellants allege are not supported by substantial evidence.

Besides reiterating the concerns brought before the Board, the appellants contend

that the Millers’ proposal is a commercial venture which will adversely affect the

seclusion and tranquility of the rural area and decrease the property values of

neighboring residents. Lee and Copsy insist that “it is clear – to a certainty – that

the project in issue is best compared to a motel.” And that “there is no room for

                                          -5-
difference of opinion among reasonable minds: the permit should properly have

been denied, and the decision of the Board’s [sic] was arbitrary.”

             We disagree. We have examined the record in its entirety (including

the audiotaped session held before the Board) and can find no error in the circuit

court’s judgment upholding the Board’s grant of a CUP to the Millers. As the

circuit court found, “[t]he vast majority of the evidence here supports the Board’s

findings.” The circuit court concluded:

                    It is obvious to this Court that the Board believed
             that the generalized concerns of the opponents were
             addressed by the specific testimony of Zoning
             Administrator Jones and applicant Miller. The Board
             obviously concluded and found, among other things, that
             the use was authorized on property zoned AG
             [agricultural], and that adequate public roads, the
             restrictions of a 50’ building setback, a buffer strip, off
             street parking limitations, hard-surfaced roads and
             parking, limited signage, a maximum of 5 cabins holding
             not more than 2 adults and 2 children for no more than 7
             days, quiet times, and tree preservation adequately
             addressed the opponents’ concerns. The decision cannot
             be called arbitrary because the evidence presented by the
             applicants was substantial and largely unrefuted in any
             substantive way.

The circuit court’s focus, and rightly so, was on the propriety of the Board’s

decision given applicable ordinances and the substantial evidence presented before

it. We decline to set it aside. Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, 481

S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972).

                                          -6-
             Lee and Copsy secondly argue that the Board “did not make

appropriate adjudicative findings when finalizing its decision,” and that the

Board’s “purported ‘findings’ are no more than a condensed summary of the

zoning ordinance, with no explanation or development of the Board’s reasoning.”

Again, we disagree. As this Court reiterated in McKinstry v. Wells, 548 S.W.2d

169, 173 (Ky. App. 1977):

             “Adjudicative facts are the facts about the parties and
             their activities, businesses, and properties. Adjudicative
             facts usually answer the question of who did what,
             where, when, how, why, with what motive or intent;
             adjudicative facts are roughly the kinds of facts that go to
             a jury in a jury case. Legislative facts do not usually
             concern the immediate parties but are general facts which
             help the tribunal decide questions of law and policy and
             discretion.” 1 K. Davis Administrative Law Treatise, s
             7.02, p. 413 (1958).

We again quote from the circuit court, this time in determining the adequacy of the

Board’s findings: “Though this Court always prefers more detailed and specific

reference to the evidence supporting its findings to justify a land use authority’s

conclusions, we do not have to guess in this case what the evidence was.” The

Board’s findings were adequate. McKinstry, supra.

             The judgment of the Warren Circuit Court is affirmed.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                         -7-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES WARREN
                           COUNTY CITY-COUNTY BOARD
Matthew J. Baker           OF ADJUSTMENTS AND CITY-
Bowling Green, Kentucky    COUNTY PLANNING
                           COMMISSION OF WARREN
                           COUNTY, KENTUCKY:

                           Hoy P. Hodges
                           Bowling Green, Kentucky

                           BRIEF FOR APPELLEES JETT AND
                           COURTNEY MILLER:

                           Christopher T. Davenport
                           James E. Wilson III
                           Bowling Green, Kentucky

                          -8-