Court Opinion

ID: 9565332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:19:19.246458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:34.215615
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.:
Concurring and dissenting. I agree with the majority that Taco Bell, the contract-purchaser of real estate, has standing to challenge the reasonableness of a zoning change affecting the purchased property pursuant to K.S.A. 12-712. It would serve no useful purpose to create the fiction that the present owner was requesting the zoning change to utilize the property. Taco Bell was the party who would use the land if a zoning change were approved. Taco Bell had the information as to the type of construction planned, use of the facility once constructed and past experience in operation of a taco restaurant. The present landowner’s interest is selling the property to Taco Bell.
I agree with the majority as to the scope of judicial review in zoning matters. It is the local zoning authority’s right to prescribe, change or refuse to change zoning. There is a presumption that the zoning authority acted reasonably. The court’s power is limited to determine if the zoning authority acted lawfully and reasonably. The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning authority. I agree the scope of review is the test of reasonableness supplied by Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 584 P.2d 130 (1978).
I do not agree that Taco Bell has proven the unreasonableness *896of the zoning authority’s denial of the requested change. The zoning authority’s action was not unreasonable and/or arbitrary. Its action was not taken without regard to the benefit or harm involved to the community at large. The decision of the zoning authority was not so wide of the mark that its unreasonableness lay outside the realm of fair debate.
Most of the evidence presented during the administrative hearing on the zoning change request was in opposition to the change requested by Taco Bell. The neighborhood north of Johnson Drive adjacent to the area was single family residences. The neighborhood had maintained high-quality residential characteristics. Expert witnesses and neighboring property owners voiced serious concerns about the effect the proposed Taco Bell would have on property values. Expert witnesses testified that traffic along Johnson Drive is approaching the saturation point.
The city, through the years, has consistently denied requests for zoning changes on the north side of Johnson Drive to fast-food restaurants which included drive-thru window facilities. Reasons for the denials are contained in the record.
Other than being fast-food restaurants, the two adjoining restaurants are not really comparable in operation according to the evidence before the administrative board. Taco Bell’s proposed facility would have a seating capacity twice the size of Arthur Treacher’s or Winchell’s Donuts. The peak hours of business were shown to be different between the three facilities. Taco Bell would have a greater volume than the other two restaurants during the late night hours. Taco Bell’s night hours of operation would exceed those of the other two restaurants. Taco Bell’s hours of operation would last until 12:00 midnight during the week and until 2:00 a.m. on the weekends. The parking lot and drive-thru area, situated adjacent to the residential area, would be properly lighted for the safety of customers during the night hours of operation, and the lighting in the parking area may be on all night to protect the property.
Other expert witnesses testified to the additional cost to the city to maintain the area, the availability of other sites on the south side of Johnson Drive, and the economic impact on the value of surrounding land.
Here, the district court and this court, after reciting the scope *897of judicial review, have substituted their judgment for that of the administrative body. From the facts presented to the zoning authority, I cannot say that the zoning authority’s action was so arbitrary that it was unreasonable under the guidelines outlined in Combined Investment Co. v. Board of Butler County Comm’rs, 227 Kan. 17, 28, 605 P.2d 533 (1980), and Golden, 224 Kan. 591. I respectfully dissent.