Court Opinion

ID: 9948945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 15:15:10.289308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:26.366497
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 1, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

           Commonwealth of Kentucky
                  Court of Appeals

                     NO. 2023-CA-0191-MR

JEFFREY SCOTT; DANIEL BARNES;
DEBOARH GRISWOLD; THOMAS B.
GRISWOLD; WILLIAM J. HALL;
ROGER HOPGOOD; THOMAS
MATTHEW JOHNSON; VIRGINIA
JOHNSON; LAURA SUE LANDRUM;
WARREN LANDRUM; DARLENE
LANDRUM-BARNES; STEVEN
SCHREINER; DEBORAH SCOTT;
SALLY SIEBERT; AND JAMES TARTER                    APPELLANTS

           APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE C. HUNTER DAUGHERTY, JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 21-CI-00711

JESSAMINE COUNTY-CITY OF
WILMORE JOINT BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; BONNIE BANKER;
KEITH BARKER; ALTON BOONE;
ROGER BROCK; LINDA HOSTETTER;
PEPPERHILL DAY CAMP A/K/A
PEPPERHILL FARM; PEPPERHILL
FARM DAY SCHOOL AND CAMP;
PEPPERHILL SUMMER CAMP;
PEPPERHILL, INC., A KENTUCKY
CORPORATION; WEBSTER RUSSELL;
JOHN SLUGANTZ; AND
BARBARA W. STEPHENS                                                             APPELLEES

                                         OPINION
                                        AFFIRMING

                                        ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

ECKERLE, JUDGE: An agricultural camp/school in Jessamine County, Kentucky

was granted a conditional use permit (CUP). Some local residents opposed and

appealed the granting of the CUP. We find no reversible error in any of the raised

issues; hence, we affirm the Trial Court’s Opinion and Judgment upholding the

granting of the CUP.

                                      BACKGROUND

               Pepperhill Day Camp (Pepperhill)1 operates a “Day School” at 1127

Baker Lane in Jessamine County, Kentucky. The subject property is almost 90

acres in size and located off Baker Lane, a narrow 12-to-18-foot-wide road. The

land is zoned A-1 agricultural, which permits schools to operate under a CUP.

Pepperhill has thrice obtained a CUP since its inception. The first CUP, granted in

1977, had two conditions of approval, both due to traffic concerns, namely the

1
 Multiple entities with variants of the “Pepperhill” name are listed as Appellees in the instant
case. Our references herein to “Pepperhill” include Appellee Barbara W. Stephens and all such
applicable entities.

                                               -2-
camps would: (1) not exceed 100 children; and (2) operate only during public

school vacations. That CUP was revoked in 1991 due to violations of the

conditions. A second CUP was granted immediately thereafter with new

conditions:

              (1) Day camp must operate with no limit on the number
              of children

              (2) 90% of children must be bussed to the location

              (3) Overnight camping must be in conjunction with the
              day camp

              (4) Picnics and parties are allowed

                    (A) 500-person limit

                    (B) Between 9 am and 6 pm

                    (C) No PA system, bullhorns or live bands

                    (D) No outside lighting except security lights

              Operations occurred for 30 years pursuant to these conditions.

Complaints began in 2021 when COVID-19 precautions prohibited bussing,

leading to traffic issues on the narrow roadway. According to the Staff Report,

“Once the restrictions were lifted, the planning office issued a violation letter

concerning the failure to comply with the bussing requirements of the CUP.”

Pepperhill did not comply with the 1991 conditions. The 1991 CUP was

eventually revoked, and Pepperhill filed a request for a third CUP.

                                           -3-
             Pepperhill included “Justifications” for the request, showing that it

had over 160 letters and petitions in support of its requested CUP to operate a

school in the A-1 Agricultural zone. Its Justifications noted that the Jessamine

County-City of Wilmore Joint Board of Adjustments (BOA) had, in 1991,

interpreted the local zoning ordinance’s definition of “school” to include

Pepperhill, as its operations are primarily teaching and recreational.

             In its third request for a CUP, Pepperhill averred that the conditions

on Baker Lane had changed markedly over the past 50 years with the addition of

several businesses and a subdivision. Pepperhill proffered that its impact on the

area’s traffic is minimal as it operates at most 12 weeks out of the year during the

summer months. It noted that a strong bussing requirement would pose a severe, if

not impossible, restriction, as finding CDL drivers is challenging in a post-

COVID-19 world. Its Justifications cited to numerous school districts and

statistics both locally and nationally showing significant impacts on bussing due to

the post-COVID-19 CDL driver shortage. The Justifications also noted that

COVID-19 vaccines were not then available for children under the age of 12,

which included a large portion of its clientele, causing an increased risk for

infectious exposure to adults and children if they were all required to ride on a bus

together.

                                         -4-
                 The Justifications suggested potential solutions to any traffic impacts

Pepperhill might cause during its 12-week operations, including: using 15-

passenger vans (no CDL is required to operate such vans) to drive students;

identifying rideshare and drop-off locations for carpooling; and assigning

staggered drop-off and pick-up time slots to alleviate congestion during high-

traffic times.

                 Jeffrey Scott and other nearby landowners (Opponents) opposed the

CUP. A multi-hour-long BOA hearing was held on November 18, 2021.

Pepperhill and Opponents presented considerable evidence, especially regarding

traffic and noise issues. Pepperhill’s evidence included testimony from an HR

specialist about the dearth of CDL drivers. Additionally, a Staff Report was

created and presented to the BOA outlining the history of Pepperhill and its CUPs,

a description of the proposed use, a reference of the applicable statutes and

regulations, and a “Staff Analysis” of the proposed CUP. The Staff Report

ultimately recommended the CUP be granted with the following conditions:

                 1. Camp activities only allowed between May and
                 August

                 2. 90% of students shall be transported by bus or 15-
                 passenger van

                 3. Overnight camping must be in conjunction with the
                 day camp

                 4. Limit number of children to 200 per day

                                             -5-
                Members of the BOA deliberated before unanimously approving the

CUP with the following conditions listed in the minutes of the hearing:

                1. Pepperhill school/camp in-person activities are only
                allowed for the months of May, June, July, and August.

                2. Overnight camping must be in conjunction with the
                day camp.

                3. Pepperhill shall be allowed to have school/camp
                students attend via personal transportation, with the
                number of personal vehicles capped at 100 or a number
                of personal vehicles equal to 50% of the number of
                students enrolled for the applicable session, whichever is
                less. All other student transportation shall occur by bus
                or commercial van, arranged with the assistance of
                Pepperhill.

                4. Pepperhill shall include in promotional and enrollment
                materials the options to attend via bus or commercial van
                arranged with the assistance of Pepperhill[.]

                Opponents next filed a Complaint in Jessamine Circuit Court (Circuit

Court) raising nine separate counts, each claiming various reasons why the BOA’s

action in granting the CUP was arbitrary and capricious. After parties filed

answers, they established a briefing schedule. As the Complaint was a statutory

appeal pursuant to KRS2 100.347, which was constrained to the evidence

submitted to the BOA, the Circuit Court ordered the BOA to submit the “record as

2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -6-
is.” The BOA filed of record 13 documentary items relied upon by the BOA in

making its decision and two CDs containing the November 18, 2021, hearing. The

parties submitted briefs, and oral arguments were set before the Circuit Court. The

Circuit Court then, on December 5, 2022, entered an Opinion and Judgment

(Opinion).

                The Circuit Court examined the BOA’s decision for arbitrariness

pursuant to American Beauty Homes Corporation v. Louisville and Jefferson

County Planning and Zoning Commission, 379 S.W.2d 450 (Ky. 1964), and

affirmed the BOA’s decision, finding the BOA did not act arbitrarily when

granting the CUP. The Parties then litigated CR3 55.02, 59.05, and 60.02 motions,

all of which were denied. Finally, the Opponents filed a notice of appeal.

Additional background information is discussed below.

                                         ANALYSIS

                Opponents raise four issues on appeal. We have grouped two of them

together and analyze them below following a brief recitation of the standards for

appealing a BOA decision.

                “KRS 100.347(1) creates a statutory right to appeal from a final action

of a board of adjustment.” Kenton County Board of Adjustment v. Meitzen, 607

S.W.3d 586, 592 (Ky. 2020). These appeals from an administrative body are a

3
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            -7-
matter of legislative grace, not a matter of right; thus, failure to comply strictly

with the statutory requirements are fatal. Id. at 593-94 (citations omitted).

             The standard of review of administrative decisions is well established:

             As correctly noted by the lower court[] in this matter, our
             predecessor court’s decision in American Beauty Homes
             remains the seminal case as to judicial review of
             administrative action. In that case, the court held that
             review is concerned with the question of arbitrariness.
             379 S.W.2d at 456. That determination is comprised of
             three elements: 1) whether the agency acted in the
             exercise of its statutory powers; 2) whether a party
             affected by an administrative order received procedural
             due process; and 3) whether the agency action is
             supported by substantial evidence. Id. The court also
             noted that “[a]s a general rule the yardstick of fairness is
             sufficiently broad to measure the validity of
             administrative action.” Id. at 456 (citing Commonwealth
             ex rel. Meredith v. Frost, 295 Ky. 137, 145-46, 172
             S.W.2d 905, 909 (1943)).

Friends of Louisville Public Art, LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro

Historic Landmarks and Preservation Districts Comm’n, 671 S.W.3d 209, 213

(Ky. 2023) (alterations added and in original). See also Hilltop Basic Resources,

Inc. v. County of Boone, 180 S.W.3d 464, 470 (Ky. 2005) (“[W]e agree with Judge

Knopf that Hilltop’s right to receive fair and nonarbitrary treatment before the

Fiscal Court is adequately protected . . . by adhering to the traditional standards

which are set forth in American Beauty Homes, supra.”). “Substantial evidence is

defined as ‘evidence of substance and relative consequence having the fitness to

induce conviction in the minds of reasonable [persons].’” Kentucky

                                          -8-
Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Kentucky,

Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Ky. 2002) (quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v.

Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Ky. 1998)) (alterations in original).

             Under these standards, “A reviewing court may not substitute its

judgment for that of an administrative agency even though it might have reached a

different result.” Allen v. Woodford County Bd. of Adjustments, 228 S.W.3d 573,

575 (Ky. App. 2007) (citing Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, 481

S.W.2d 298, 308-09 (Ky. 1972)).

   I.    Was the BOA decision arbitrary because it was not supported by

         substantial evidence?

             Opponents first claim both that the Circuit Court (in its KRS 100.347

review for arbitrariness) and the BOA (in its decision to grant a CUP) erred.

Specifically, Opponents claim the BOA’s decision was arbitrary and not supported

by substantial evidence due to the significant traffic issues and the harm granting

the CUP would bring to the Opponents, who further claim the BOA did not give

the Staff Report meaningful consideration.

             We have reviewed the record, including the hearing and the minutes,

and discern no arbitrariness in the BOA’s action granting the CUP. See KRS

100.111(6) (defining CUP). Pepperhill presented evidence of substance regarding

the traffic and its mitigation measures. Its evidence demonstrated substantial

                                         -9-
difficulties obtaining drivers with CDLs to bus children in a post-COVID-19

world. Its evidence further demonstrated the desire and need for Pepperhill’s

summer classes, as shown by the countless professionals and parents who testified

to the short- and long-term positive impacts Pepperhill has on its clients. Its

evidence demonstrated hundreds of children would be educated in agriculture

during Pepperhill’s summer camps at this agriculturally-zoned property. Its

evidence also supported the transportation conditions ultimately placed on

Pepperhill’s CUP. All of this substantial evidence supports the finding that the

granting of the CUP and the conditions placed on the CUP were not arbitrary

decisions of the BOA. American Beauty Homes, supra at 456.

             Opponents argue that the BOA’s decision was flawed and not

supported by substantial evidence because it did not adopt the Staff Report’s

suggested conditions. However, it points us to neither any law stating a BOA must

adopt a Staff Report’s suggested conditions nor even follow a Staff Report’s

recommendation to deny or approve an application for a CUP. Nonetheless, in our

independent review, we have found no such jurisprudence. Indeed, it would likely

constitute arbitrary action if a BOA were required to follow a Staff Report’s

recommendation rather than conduct its own, independent analysis of the evidence.

Accordingly, we reject this claim.

                                         -10-
             Opponents also argue that the conditions adopted by the BOA are

wholly or partially meaningless and unenforceable. For example, Opponents claim

the May through August operational condition and the overnight camping

condition are meaningless, and the 100-car condition is unenforceable. But the

question before us on this statutory appeal of an administrative decision is simply

whether the action was arbitrary, i.e., unsupported by substantial evidence. Each

of these conditions is supported by substantial evidence, as is the application’s

overall grant. American Beauty Homes, supra at 458. Accordingly, we affirm the

Circuit Court on these issues.

   II.    Did the BOA exceed its authority?

             Opponents also claim the BOA exceeded its authority because

Pepperhill “acknowledged that it had used a ‘private security force’ to stop and

regulate traffic on U.S. Highway 27, a federal highway.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.

It appears that prior to its 2021 application, Pepperhill hired personnel to direct

traffic off of Baker Lane and onto U.S. Highway 27. Opponents claim Pepperhill’s

actions constitute illegal acts by directing traffic on a federal highway; thus, the

BOA could not have granted a CUP that condoned such illegal acts.

             The Circuit Court rejected this argument. We agree. This

arbitrariness issue is whether the BOA exceeded its statutory authority when

granting the CUP. American Beauty Homes, supra at 456. Assuming for a

                                         -11-
moment that using private security is an illegal action, nothing on the face of the

CUP nor its conditions requires such illegal actions. The conditions are wholly

silent about private security. Accordingly, Opponents’ argument on this issue

fails, and we affirm the Circuit Court on this issue.

   III.   Is Pepperhill a school?

             Finally, Opponents argue that the Planning Director’s Staff Report

and the BOA erroneously interpreted the term “school” in Section 3.223 of the

Jessamine County Zoning Ordinance to include Pepperhill’s day camp. Pepperhill

responds that the issue is neither properly before us, nor was it properly before the

Circuit Court, as it was not timely challenged pursuant to KRS 100.261.

Additionally, Pepperhill claims there is no substantive error, as the BOA is entitled

to interpret its own regulations. The Circuit Court likewise rejected the claim,

finding it was not properly preserved, substantively erroneous, and barred by res

judicata because Pepperhill was defined as a school in the 1991 CUP.

             We agree that the issue is not properly preserved. KRS 100.261

requires persons claiming to be “injuriously affected or aggrieved by an official

action, order, requirement, interpretation, grant, refusal, or decision of any zoning

enforcement officer” to file an appeal to the requisite board of adjustment within

30 days after receiving notice of the action. Here, the Staff Report notes that a

“day camp” is not listed in the zoning ordinance as a conditional use. The Staff

                                         -12-
Report notes that a “school” is listed as a conditional use, and Pepperhill had in

1991 been approved as a “school” under the CUP regulations. It does not appear

that Opponents ever appealed or challenged the Staff Report’s determination that

Pepperhill was a school. Notably, Opponents do not cite to the record where this

issue is preserved. Pepperhill points out that at the BOA hearing on the CUP

application, none of the Opponents challenged the determination that Pepperhill

was a school. It appears this issue was first raised on appeal to the Circuit Court.

KRS 100.261, and case law precludes such action in this statutory appeal.

             Allen, supra, is on point. There, a party was precluded from

challenging that a use fell into the definition of “tourist home” because such issue

was first raised on appeal to the Circuit Court. The application for a CUP to

operate a “tourist home” was first reviewed by a Zoning Compliance Officer. The

Officer noted that the applicable regulations did not define “tourist home,” so the

Officer provided a definition for the Woodford County Board of Adjustments to

use. The Woodford County Board of Adjustments relied upon the definition and

ultimately granted the CUP. Though the opponents in Allen were aware of the

Officer’s definition at the CUP hearing, they did not challenge that interpretation at

the Woodford County Board of Adjustments. The issue was thus raised for the

first time at the Circuit Court. Such action is prohibited. “The intent of KRS

100.261 is to prevent situations such as the one that has arisen here. The

                                         -13-
Appellants’ attempt to have the circuit court, and now this Court, review [the

Officer’s] interpretation was untimely.” Allen, 228 S.W.3d at 576. Compare with

Keogh v. Woodford Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments, 243 S.W.3d 369 (Ky. App. 2007)

(interpretation properly raised on appeal).

             Allen and KRS 100.261 control. Opponents were notified at least by

the date of the hearing that Pepperhill’s operation was being considered a “school”

under the regulations. More than that, Opponents should have known since 1991

that Pepperhill was considered a “school” under the regulations. Opponents had

ample time to raise the issue to the BOA. KRS 100.261 required that they raise the

issue with the BOA. They failed to do so. Failure to follow the statutory

requirements is fatal to review of the administrative decision. Kenton County

Board of Adjustment, 607 S.W.3d at 593-94. Accordingly, we affirm the Circuit

Court on this issue.

                                  CONCLUSION

             We have thoroughly reviewed the record and found no arbitrary action

by the BOA in granting Pepperhill’s CUP application. Accordingly, we AFFIRM

the Circuit Court’s Order denying Opponent’s appeal of this administrative

decision.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                        -14-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
                            PEPPERHILL, INC. AND
Robert L. Gullette, Jr.     BARBARA STEPHENS:
Nicholasville, Kentucky
                            Justin Manning
                            Nicholasville, Kentucky

                            BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
                            JESSAMINE COUNTY-CITY OF
                            WILMORE JOINT BOARD OF
                            ADJUSTMENT:

                            Henry E. Smith
                            Nicholasville, Kentucky

                          -15-