Court Opinion

ID: 9955754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:14:56.809759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:20.203500
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                     TO BE PUBLISHED

           Commonwealth of Kentucky
                   Court of Appeals

                     NO. 2022-CA-0144-MR

JIMMY CALHOUN; DAVID ALLEN;
DAVID GRAVES; JACQUELINE
KEARNS; KERRY KEARNS; MARK
ANDERS; PAULA CALHOUN;
PAULA DAMRON; ROBERT
DAMRON; ROBIN ALLEN;
SAUNDRA ANDERS; AND WALT
JOURDAN                                             APPELLANTS

           APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE C. HUNTER DAUGHERTY, JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 20-CI-00316

TALL OAK, LLC; ALEX CARTER, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A
MEMBER OF THE NICHOLASVILLE
CITY COMMISSION AND/OR
NICHOLASVILLE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; BETTY BLACK,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A
MEMBER OF THE NICHOLASVILLE
CITY COMMISSION AND/OR
NICHOLASVILLE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; DOUG
BLACKFORD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE
NICHOLASVILLE CITY
COMMISSION AND/OR
NICHOLASVILLE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; MAYOR PETE
SUTHERLAND, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; PATTY TEATER, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A
MEMBER OF THE NICHOLASVILLE
CITY COMMISSION AND/OR
NICHOLASVILLE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; THE CITY OF
NICHOLASVILLE; AND THE
NICHOLASVILLE CITY
COMMISSION AND/OR THE
NICHOLASVILLE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS                                                        APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

ACREE, JUDGE: Appellants, who reside adjacent to a former country club in

Nicholasville, Kentucky, appeal the Jessamine Circuit Court’s December 22, 2021

Order affirming the Nicholasville City Commission’s decision to rezone the former

country club to allow for residential development. Appellants argue the circuit

court erred in concluding the City Commission’s decision complied with

applicable provisions of both Kentucky statutes and the Nicholasville Code of

Ordinances. Finding no error, we affirm.

                                        -2-
                                 BACKGROUND

             The land which used to be the Lone Oak Country Club is located in

Nicholasville, Kentucky. The club opened in 1968 and, due to decline in

membership and revenue, was sold to Appellee, Tall Oak, LLC. The property is

surrounded by residential homes; Appellants are individual residents who live next

to what was the country club.

             Tall Oak sought to develop its purchase into a residential subdivision.

However, it could not do so because all 130 acres were zoned as agricultural. Tall

Oak submitted a zoning map amendment application to the Nicholasville Planning

Commission and the Nicholasville City Commission, seeking to construct 345

homes. On June 10, 2019, the City Commission passed Ordinance 1053-2019

expressing its intent to annex the former country club.

             The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on Tall Oak’s

application on September 23, 2019, which was continued to October 28, 2019.

The Planning Commission voted to deny the application, and Tall Oak withdrew it.

             Tall Oak submitted a second application for zone amendment on

January 6, 2020, which requested the City of Nicholasville to annex the property.

Three acres of the property including some of the Appellants’ residences were

already within the city limits. The application further sought rezoning of the

proposed annexed portion of the land so that Tall Oak could construct 316 homes,

                                         -3-
reduced from the original proposal of 345. More specifically, Tall Oak wanted the

land to be rezoned from “A-1 (County) Agriculture” and “A-1 (City) Agriculture”

to a mix of city single family residential, city multi-family residential, and city

business zoning.

             The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on

February 24, 2020. Tall Oak presented evidence of the need for the zoning change

and of compliance with both the Nicholasville Comprehensive Plan and Code of

Ordinances. Appellants stated their objections to the proposed zoning change.

Among other reasons, they said the already overburdened sanitary sewer system

could not handle the additional homes, and that development would exacerbate

traffic problems in the area. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission

voted to reject Tall Oak’s application.

             Tall Oak appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the City

Commission. On May 18, 2020, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 004-

2020, which rezoned Tall Oak’s land from agricultural to residential.

             Appellants filed their complaint with the Jessamine Circuit Court on

June 17, 2020, both appealing the City Commission’s decision and seeking a

declaratory judgment. The circuit court affirmed the City Commission’s adoption

of the ordinance in an order entered December 22, 2021. The circuit court

concluded the City Commission did not act beyond its authority, that Appellants

                                          -4-
were not denied their due process rights, and that the City Commission’s decision

to approve the zoning change was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by

substantial evidence. This appeal followed.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

               As the circuit court did, we treat Appellant’s action as an appeal from

an administrative agency.1 “Basically, judicial review of administrative action is

concerned with the question of arbitrariness.” Am. Beauty Homes Corp. v.

Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Plan. & Zoning Comm’n, 379 S.W.2d 450, 456 (Ky.

1964) (emphasis original). An administrative agency’s decision is arbitrary if the

agency acted in excess of its statutory power, if a party affected by an

administrative action was not afforded procedural due process, or if the

administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. (citations

omitted). “Substantial evidence has been conclusively defined by Kentucky courts

1
  In Molyneaux v. City of Bardstown, the City of Bardstown Historic Review Board voted to
approve, by voice vote, the appellant’s Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for appellant’s
proposed renovations to two townhouses subject to the city’s historic building requirements, upon
the condition that currently existing exterior elements be replaced with material currently on the
side of the buildings – appellant wanted to cover wood trim with vinyl siding – and that work be
completed within six months of the COA. Molyneaux v. City of Bardstown, 656 S.W.3d 232, 235
(Ky. App. 2022). Appellants filed both a notice of appeal and a petition for declaration of rights;
we noted that, though it was unclear whether an appealable event actually occurred and thus it was
appropriate for appellants to have pursued both their appeal and original declaration of rights
action, the circuit court properly treated the action as if it were an appeal from an administrative
agency. Id. at 244. This Court engaged in review accordingly. Id. In the instant case, there is
clearly an appealable administrative action – the City Commission’s approval of Tall Oak’s
rezoning request – and, therefore, as in Molyneaux, we perform our analysis through the
administrative appeal lens.

                                                -5-
as that which, when taken alone or in light of all the evidence, has sufficient

probative value to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable person.” Bowling

v. Nat. Res. & Env’t Prot. Cabinet, 891 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Ky. App. 1994) (citing

Kentucky State Racing Comm’n v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972)).

                                       ANALYSIS

                Appellants argue two reasons for declaring the City Commission’s

decision arbitrary. First, they argue the circuit court erred because it should have

determined the zoning amendment was not processed in accordance with KRS2

Chapter 100 and, therefore, the City Commission acted beyond its statutory

authority. Second, Appellants argue the circuit court erred by ruling Tall Oak was

not required to submit a storm water management plan alongside its rezoning

proposal, which Appellants argue is required by Nicholasville’s Code of

Ordinances, and, accordingly, that the City Commission acted outside its authority

in approving Tall Oak’s application.

KRS Chapter 100.

                Appellants first argue the circuit court erred by failing to hold the City

Commission’s process in rezoning did not comply with KRS 100.209. Appellants

argue that, though the City Commission adopted “An Intent to Annex

2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -6-
Ordinance[,]” it did not attempt to amend the comprehensive plan or hold a hearing

on any proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan.

             The circuit court determined Appellants waived this argument because

they did not raise it before the Planning Commission. We agree.

             Citing Nicholasville Road Neighborhood Consortium, Inc. v.

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 994 S.W.2d 521 (Ky. App. 1999)

and Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Inc. v. Albert Oil Co., Inc., 969

S.W.2d 691 (Ky. 1998), Appellants argue “provisions of KRS Chapter 100 cannot

be waived” even by agreement. (Appellants’ brief, p. 6.) These cases, however,

have nothing to do with, and do not negate, the rule that “failure to raise an issue

before an administrative body precludes a litigant from asserting that issue in an

action for judicial review of the agency’s action.” O’Dea v. Clark, 883 S.W.2d

888, 892 (Ky. App. 1994). That is the rule that governs here, and it precludes this

Court from reversing on a ground which the administrative board was never given

the opportunity to address.

             Even if Appellants had raised the argument in a timely manner while

the administrative board still had jurisdiction, and presuming the same outcome,

we would not be persuaded to reverse anyway. We find no error in the circuit

court’s conclusion that the City Commission complied with KRS Chapter 100.

KRS 100.209 allows a city to amend its comprehensive plan and official zoning

                                         -7-
map in the event it annexes or accepts transfer of territory, provided it follows

these steps first:

              When a city which has adopted zoning or other land use
              regulations pursuant to this chapter proposes to annex
              unincorporated or accept the transfer of incorporated
              territory, it may amend its comprehensive plan and official
              zoning map to incorporate and establish zoning or other
              land use regulations for the property proposed for
              annexation or transfer prior to adoption of the ordinance
              of annexation or transfer. If the city elects to follow this
              procedure, the planning commission shall hold a public
              hearing, after the adoption of the ordinance stating the
              city’s intention to annex or transfer property and prior to
              final action upon the ordinance of annexation or transfer,
              for the purpose of adopting the comprehensive plan
              amendment and making its recommendations as to the
              zoning or other land use regulations which will be
              effective for the property upon its annexation or transfer.
              Notice setting forth the time, date, location, and purpose
              of the public hearing shall be published as required by
              KRS Chapter 424 and shall be given to the owners of all
              properties within the area proposed for annexation or
              transfer and to adjoining property owners in accordance
              with KRS 100.212(2). The city legislative body shall take
              final action upon the planning commission’s
              recommendations prior to adoption of the ordinance of
              annexation or transfer and shall include in the ordinance
              of annexation or transfer a map showing the zoning or
              other land use regulations which will be effective for the
              annexed or transferred property. If the city elects not to
              follow the procedure provided for in this section prior to
              the adoption of the ordinance of annexation or transfer, the
              newly annexed or transferred territory shall remain subject
              to the same land use restrictions, if any, as applied to it
              prior to annexation or transfer until those restrictions are
              changed by zoning map amendments or other regulations
              in accordance with this chapter.

                                          -8-
KRS 100.209(1). Appellants argue that, because the city annexed and rezoned real

property and did not amend the comprehensive plan, the previous agricultural

zoning still applies to the land. Accordingly, they argue the City Commission

acted in excess of its powers.

             We detect no error in the circuit court’s conclusion that the City

Commission processed the zoning map amendment in accordance with KRS

100.209(1). On June 10, 2019, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 1053-

2019 expressing its intention to annex the former country club. Accordingly, it did

so prior to a public hearing on Tall Oak’s application on February 24, 2020.

Lastly, the City Commission took final action by adopting Ordinance 018-2020,

reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and annexing the land.

             Appellants argue the statutory procedure was not followed because no

attempt was made to amend the comprehensive plan. As the statute states, a city

“may amend its comprehensive plan and official zoning map to incorporate and

establish zoning or other land use regulations for the property proposed for

annexation or transfer prior to adoption of the ordinance of annexation or transfer.”

KRS 100.209(1) (emphasis added). However, the word “and” in the statute does

not operate to require amendment to a comprehensive plan where, as here, no

amendment to the comprehensive plan was required to bring the zoning

amendment into conformity with it.

                                         -9-
             “As a matter of application, all statutes are to be liberally construed to

promote the objects and carry out the intent of the General Assembly.”

Richardson v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 260 S.W.3d 777, 779 (Ky.

2008) (citing KRS 446.080(1)). If a statute is unambiguous, courts do not need to

resort to extrinsic evidence to determine the General Assembly’s intent. Id. (citing

Lewis v. Jackson Energy Co-op. Corp., 189 S.W.3d 87, 94 (Ky. 2005)). However,

a “statute is generally open to construction only where the language used requires

interpretation or may be reasonably considered ambiguous.” Overnite Transp. Co.

v. Gaddis, 793 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Ky. App. 1990) (citing 73 AM. JUR. 2D Statutes

§§ 145 & 194 (1974)). “We presume, of course, that the General Assembly did not

intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.” Richardson, 260 S.W.3d at 779

(citing Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 136 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Ky. 2004)).

             In our view, it would yield an absurd result if the word “and” in the

first sentence of KRS 100.209 were read to require amendment of a city’s

comprehensive plan in every instance a city wanted to change its zoning map, even

if the proposed change already aligned with the comprehensive plan. We have

recognized that “and” is not used as a necessary connection in every instance and,

therefore, may be ambiguous. In Duncan v. Wiseman Baking Company, we noted

that, because “the popular use of the words ‘or’ and ‘and’ is loose and frequently

inaccurate, the courts may and should change ‘and’ to ‘or,’ and vice versa,

                                         -10-
whenever such conversion is required[.]” 357 S.W.2d 694, 698 (Ky. 1961)

(citations omitted). While the use of “and” at issue in KRS 100.209 does not

require that we read “and” to mean “or,” we avoid an absurd result here by reading

the statute as not requiring amendment to a comprehensive plan every time a city’s

zoning map is amended.

             Indeed, this outcome is contemplated elsewhere in KRS Chapter 100.

As KRS 100.213 provides, “[b]efore any map amendment is granted, the planning

commission or the legislative body or fiscal court must find that the map

amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan[.]” KRS

100.213(1). The City Commission explicitly determined as much in its findings of

fact. When read in light of KRS 100.213(1), it cannot be the case that KRS

100.209 requires amendment to a comprehensive plan in every instance.

Accordingly, the City Commission complied with applicable law and, therefore,

the manner by which it approved the zoning map amendment did not exceed its

statutory powers.

Nicholasville Code of Ordinances Chapter 26.

             Second, Appellants argue the Code of Ordinances requires a

developer to submit a storm water management plan before real estate

development can be approved, which Tall Oak did not do. However, we agree

with the circuit court that Appellants misread the applicable ordinances.

                                        -11-
            Nicholasville Code of Ordinances Chapter 26, titled “STORM

WATER MANAGEMENT[,]” provides detailed instructions for storm water

management plan proposals and when such plans are required. See

NICHOLASVILLE, KY., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 26 (2019). Article II, Division 6

of Chapter 26 is titled “REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM WATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL[,]” NICHOLASVILLE, KY., CODE OF

ORDINANCES ch. 26, art. II, div. 6 (2019). Appellants argue two sections of

Division 6 – Sec. 26-270 and Sec. 26-271 – required Tall Oak to submit storm

water management plan alongside its development plan.

            Division 6, Sec. 26-270, titled “Storm water management plan

required for all developments[,]” provides:

            (a) No application for development will be approved
                unless it includes a storm water management plan
                detailing in concept how runoff and associated water
                quality impacts resulting from the development will be
                controlled or managed. This plan must indicate
                whether storm water will be managed on site or off site
                and, if on site, the general location and type of
                practices.

            (b) The storm water management plan(s) shall be referred
                for comment to all other interested agencies, and any
                comments must be addressed in a final storm water
                management plan. This final plan must be signed by
                a licensed professional engineer (PE), who will verify
                that the design of all storm water management
                practices meet the submittal requirements outlined in
                the BMP manual. No building permit, approved
                construction plans, or grading permit shall be issued

                                       -12-
                until a satisfactory final storm water management
                plan, or a waiver thereof, shall have undergone a
                review and been approved by the planning
                commission after determining that the plan or waiver
                is consistent with the requirements of this article.

NICHOLASVILLE, KY., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 26, art. II, div. 6, § 26-270 (2019)

(emphasis added). Division 6, Sec. 26-271, titled “Storm water management

concept plan requirements,” provides:

            (a) A storm water management concept plan shall be
                required with all permit applications and will include
                sufficient information (e.g., maps, hydrologic
                calculations, etc.) to evaluate the environmental
                characteristics of the project site, the potential impacts
                of all proposed development of the site, both present
                and future, on the water resources, and the
                effectiveness and acceptability of the measures
                proposed for managing the storm water generated at
                the project site. The intent of this conceptual planning
                process is to determine the type of storm water
                management measures necessary for the proposed
                project, and ensure adequate planning for management
                of storm water runoff from future development. To
                accomplish this goal the following information shall
                be included in the storm water management concept
                plan;

                  (1) A map (or maps) indicating the location of
                      existing and proposed buildings, roads, parking
                      areas, utilities, structural storm water
                      management and sediment control facilities.
                      The map(s) will also clearly show proposed
                      land use with tabulation of the percentage of
                      surface area to be adapted to various uses;
                      drainage patterns; locations of utilities, roads
                      and easements; the limits of clearing and
                      grading; a written description of the site plan

                                        -13-
                        and justification of proposed changes in natural
                        conditions may also be required.

                    (2) Sufficient engineering analysis to show that the
                        proposed storm water management measures
                        are capable of controlling runoff from the site in
                        compliance with this article and the
                        specifications of the BMP manual.

                    (3) A written description of the required
                       maintenance burden for any proposed storm
                       water management facility.

             (b) For development or redevelopment occurring on a
                 previously developed site, an applicant shall be
                 required to include within the storm water
                 management concept plan measures for controlling
                 existing storm water runoff discharges from the site in
                 accordance with the standards of this article to the
                 maximum extent practicable.

NICHOLASVILLE, KY., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 26, art. II, div. 6, § 26-271 (2019)

(emphasis added).

             The circuit court determined that the applicable ordinances, 26-270

and 26-271, do not apply at this stage of the development process, in view of other

provisions of Chapter 26 of the Nicholasville Code of Ordinances. We find no

error in this conclusion.

             Chapter 26, Article II, Division 2 is titled “PERMIT PROCEDURES

AND REQUIREMENTS[,]” and Sections 26-220 and 26-221 reveal when in the

development process a developer is required to submit a storm water management

plan. Division 2, Sec. 26-220, titled “Permit required[,]” provides:

                                         -14-
             No land owner or land operator shall receive any of the
             building, grading or other land development permits
             required for land disturbance activities without first
             meeting the requirements of this article prior to
             commencing the proposed activity.

NICHOLASVILLE, KY., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 26, art. II, div. 2, § 26-220 (2019)

(emphasis added). Division 2, Sec. 26-221, titled “Application requirements”

provides as relevant:

             (a) Unless specifically excluded by this article, any land
             owner or operator desiring a permit for land disturbance
             activity shall submit to the planning commission a permit
             application. A copy of the building or grading permit
             application form can be obtained from the planning
             commission office.

             (b) Unless otherwise exempted by this article, a building
             permit, approved construction plans, or grading permit
             application must be accompanied by the following in
             order that the permit application be considered: a storm
             water management plan (SWMP); a maintenance
             agreement; and all applicable nonrefundable permit
             review fees.

NICHOLASVILLE, KY., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 26, art. II, div. 2, § 26-221(a) &

(b) (2019) (emphasis added).

             Reading Chapter 26 as a whole, we agree with the circuit court’s

determination that a storm water management plan is not required at the rezoning

stage of the development process. Instead, a developer is required to submit their

plan later in the process; specifically, the plan is a prerequisite for land disturbance

activity, rather than initial approval of a development plan or approval of a

                                          -15-
rezoning request. See id. We agree with the circuit court that the City

Commission’s decision was not arbitrary.

                                 CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Jessamine Circuit’s December

22, 2021 Order affirming the Nicholasville City Commission.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
                                           NICHOLASVILLE BOARD OF
T. Bruce Simpson, Jr.                      COMMISSIONERS, AND THE CITY
Lexington, Kentucky                        OF NICHOLASVILLE:

                                           Clifford H. Ashburner
                                           Suzanne M. Marino
                                           Louisville, Kentucky

                                           BRIEF FOR APPELLEE TALL OAK,
                                           LLC:

                                           Bruce E. Smith
                                           Nicholasville, Kentucky

                                        -16-