Court Opinion

ID: 9381951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 14:04:53.040043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:35.949434
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

          Commonwealth of Kentucky
                    Court of Appeals

                      NO. 2021-CA-0940-MR

LISA GANNOE                                          APPELLANT

          APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v.       HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE
                 ACTION NO. 20-CI-03008

LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; CHAD
NEEDHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; CHAD T.
WALKER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; ECTON FARM,
LLC; HARRY CLARKE, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER
OF THE LEXINGTON FAYETTE
URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; JANICE
MEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; JOAN WITMAN,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; MICHAEL ECTON;
PHILIP GROSS, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; RAQUEL
CARTER, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; AND THOMAS
GLOVER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT                                     APPELLEES

AND

                     NO. 2021-CA-0990-MR

ECTON FARM, LLC, AND MICHAEL
ECTON                                      CROSS-APPELLANTS

         CROSS-APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE KIMBERLY N. BUNNELL, JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 20-CI-03008

LISA GANNOE; CHAD NEEDHAM,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

                                -2-
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; CHAD T. WALKER,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; HARRY CLARKE, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; JANICE MEYER, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; JOAN WITMAN, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; PHILIP GROSS, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; RAQUEL CARTER,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
MEMBER OF THE LEXINGTON
FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; AND THOMAS
GLOVER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN

                           -3-
COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT                                                 CROSS-APPELLEES

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Lisa Gannoe appeals from the Fayette Circuit Court’s order

affirming the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Board of Adjustment

(the Board or BOA) decision to approve the conditional use permit application of

Michael Ecton and Ecton Farm LLC (Ecton). Ecton cross-appeals, arguing that the

Fayette Circuit Court erred in denying Ecton’s motion to dismiss Gannoe’s

administrative appeal. We affirm on appeal and cross-appeal (Nos. 2021-CA-0940

and 2021-CA-0990, respectively).

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

of southern Fayette County. In 2006 the Board had granted a conditional use

permit for a plant nursery to the former owner who then built a structure but failed

to comply with a number of the conditions. The property was essentially

abandoned, and that permit was revoked in 2017. Ecton, the current owner,

purchased the property in July 2020 at a master commissioner’s sale. Ecton then

sought Board approval for another conditional use permit; he submitted his plans,

                                         -4-
including restoration of the existing greenhouse, for the structure to remain a plant

nursery. Gannoe, whose residence is located across the road from Ecton’s

property, and other adjoining landowners (residents of the Old Richmond Road

Neighborhood Association) opposed the permit. The Board held a hearing, during

which Ecton presented his testimony and proposed plans; after Gannoe and the

others voiced their objections, the Board voted (6 to 1) to approve the permit for a

plant nursery on the property. The permit was subject to nine separately listed

conditions.1

               In October 2020, Gannoe appealed the Board’s decision to the Fayette

Circuit Court pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 100.347(1), which

states:

               Any person or entity claiming to be injured or aggrieved
               by any final action of the board of adjustment shall
               appeal from the action to the Circuit Court of the county
               in which the property, which is the subject of the action
               of the board of adjustment, lies. Such appeal shall be
               taken within thirty (30) days after the final action of the
               board. All final actions which have not been appealed
               within thirty (30) days shall not be subject to judicial
               review. The board of adjustment shall be a party in any
               such appeal filed in the Circuit Court.

1
  Included among the listed conditions were limitations on hours of operation, installation of a
stormwater management system, appropriate landscaping, and lighting, as well as conditions
regarding ingress and egress. No sales were to take place on the property. And Ecton agreed to
bring the existing structure, which had suffered significant neglect since its original construction,
up to code.

                                                -5-
Ecton and the Board filed separate motions to dismiss the action, arguing that

Gannoe and the other neighbors failed to establish sufficiently that they were

injured or aggrieved. KRS 100.347(1). The motions were denied after a hearing

on December 4, 2020.2

              The parties briefed the remaining issues, and the circuit court held a

hearing with all parties present on July 13, 2021. Judgment was entered on August

3, 2021. Gannoe filed her appeal, and Ecton filed his cross-appeal.

              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).

              Gannoe argues that, because the Board was interpreting the Zoning

Ordinance’s provisions regarding commercial greenhouses versus plant nurseries,

the circuit court should have reviewed the Board’s decision de novo, rather than

2
  However, one named Board member (Janice Meyer) was dismissed as a party without
objection because she was not a member at the time the Board voted to approve the permit.

                                             -6-
simply for arbitrariness. Gannoe contends that Ecton’s proposed use fit the

definition of a commercial greenhouse, rather than the plant nursery for which

Ecton was approved. Furthermore, Gannoe insists, the greenhouse, because it is

the only building on the property, cannot be considered an accessory structure but

must be the primary one. This, she maintains, necessarily makes Ecton’s

enterprise a commercial greenhouse rather than a plant nursery. Therefore,

Gannoe continues, the Board improperly granted the permit to Ecton for the

proposed plan’s failure to meet those definitions included in the zoning ordinances

and the circuit court erred in affirming on direct appeal. Gannoe additionally urges

that she and the other objectors were denied due process because her video camera

was muted during the Board’s hearing.

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

the videotaped sessions held in the circuit court) and can find no error in the circuit

court’s judgment upholding the Board’s grant of a conditional use permit to Ecton.

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

decision given applicable ordinances and the evidence presented before it.

                   KRS 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

                                          -7-
            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 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).

            Here, the Board had a sufficient basis for issuing Ecton the permit.

The local zoning ordinance lists a plant nursery as an available and acceptable

                                        -8-
conditional use for this agricultural zone, and Ecton’s proposal met that definition.

Ecton’s proposal was sufficiently detailed for the Board to make its decision (and

for the circuit court to consider in its review on appeal). The Board’s hearing did

not violate Gannoe’s due process rights. Gannoe and other affected parties were

given ample opportunity to submit evidence and voice their concerns. In fact, as

Ecton points out, the testimony of the opposition effectively equaled Ecton’s in

terms of time spent at the hearing. Gannoe does not specify what, if anything, she

or other objectors were prevented from presenting. The Board imposed nine

conditions which appeared on the permit, and the Board recorded the conditions in

its meeting minutes. Id. Any future violation of those conditions would be

improper for the Board’s or circuit court’s consideration. The circuit court

considered all these factors on appeal before issuing its judgment. Accordingly,

the permit was properly issued.

               Ecton’s cross-appeal (which argues that the circuit court erred by

denying his motion to dismiss)3 must also fail. We agree with the circuit court’s

ruling that Gannoe and the other objectors sufficiently met their burden of proving

that they were “injured or aggrieved” parties. KRS 100.347(1). We find no error

3
 The Board also argues that the circuit court erred in this respect; the Board’s brief essentially
mirrors Ecton’s in its position.

                                                -9-
in that determination as well as the circuit court’s order denying the motion to

dismiss.

             The judgment and order of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.

             THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE, CONCURS.

             DIXON, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-                BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES/CROSS-
APPELLEE LISA GANNOE:                      APPELLANTS ECTON FARMS LLC
                                           AND MICHAEL ECTON:
Jessica K. Winters
Lexington, Kentucky                        R. Douglas Martin
                                           Lexington, Kentucky

                                           BRIEF FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-
                                           APPELLEE LEXINGTON FAYETTE
                                           URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT:

                                           Tracy W. Jones
                                           Lexington, Kentucky

                                        -10-