143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Board of County Commissioners
259 P.3d 644
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Landowners sought to rezone ~95 acres near 143rd Street and Pflumm Road in Olathe, within Johnson County and the Airport area.
- Property largely lies in the Airport's primary flight corridor; County had adopted an Airport Compatibility Plan with density of 1 dwelling per acre, City had not adopted it.
- City approved RP-1 rezoning and Amber Ridge plat; County denied, citing density and compatibility concerns with the Airport Plan.
- District court treated County review as quasi-judicial under 3-709/Golden/Combined Investment Co. and upheld City’s rezoning.
- This court held K.S.A. 3-307e gives the County independent, discretionary authority to approve or disapprove, with a presumption of reasonableness favoring the County and City alike.
- Remand directed to determine whether landowners proved County action unlawful or unreasonable under the correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 3-307e grant independent County approval authority? | County may independently approve/disapprove. | Approval means formal assent with no discretion to deny. | County has independent, discretionary approval authority. |
| What standard should review apply to the County’s disapproval? | Golden/Combined standard or de novo review apply. | 60-2101(d) administrative standard or Golden/Combined. | Golden/Combined Investment Co. standard applies; de novo permissible but with deferential review. |
| Is there a presumption of reasonableness favoring the County and City? | County/City decisions should carry presumption against landowners. | Landowners challenge should overcome City’s presumption. | Both decisions have a presumption of reasonableness; landowners bear burden to prove unreasonableness. |
| Was the County’s disapproval lawful and reasonable? | County failed to overcome City’s reasonableness presumption. | County’s denial was lawful and supported by evidence. | Remand to district court for findings on reasonableness under Golden/Combined standard. |
| Did the district court err in denying stay of its rezoning ruling pending appeal? | Stay moot once reversed; appeal appropriate. | Stay should preserve status until resolution. | Remanded; ultimate disposition mooted by reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. City of Olathe, 263 Kan. 667 (1998) (sets presumption of reasonableness for city decisions in rezoning; context for dual authority)
- Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591 (1978) (nonexclusive factors for validity of zoning ordinances; reasonableness standard)
- Combined Investment Co. v. Board of Butler County Comm'rs, 227 Kan. 17 (1980) (eight-part test for reasonableness of zoning decisions; lays standard on appeal)
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs, 289 Kan. 926 (2009) (reaffirms Golden/Combined standard and deference in rezoning review)
- Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1 (2009) (separation-of-powers guidance for de novo review in administrative appeals)
- Olson v. City of WaKeeney, 218 Kan. 447 (1975) (prosecution of zoning regulation as regulatory action within statutory framework)
- Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371 (1967) (rezoning action as a regulation within statutory context)