Ball v. Oldham County Planning & Zoning Commission
2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 131
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Trust owned 10.26-acre parcel at 3019 North Buckeye Lane, zoned AG-1 and CO-1 with residential use.
- Property has a private easement for access to the residence on the eight-acre portion.
- Trust sought a variance in 2006 to subdivide into roughly eight acres and two acres; two-acre lot retains 354 feet of road frontage; eight-acre lot has no road frontage.
- Trust argued the eight-acre tract would remain accessible via easement and topography prevented interconnection; denial would hinder sale.
- Board initially granted variance but remanded for inadequate findings; hearing held July 19, 2007; opposing neighbor Ball argued it would alter neighborhood character.
- Board, by a 4–1 vote, granted the variance, with written findings claiming special circumstances, reasonable use, and no adverse public impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the Board's findings compliant with KRS 100.243? | Ball contends findings were inadequate. | Watts/Evidence supports sufficient findings; not strictly factual in nature. | Findings were adequate; not necessary to remand. |
| Was the variance supported by substantial evidence? | Ball argues no substantial evidence of need or hardship. | Trust showed reasonable use and special circumstances; deference due to agency. | Yes; supported by substantial evidence and proper review. |
| Did the record establish no willful zoning violations by the applicant? | Ball asserts potential willful violation should negate variance. | No evidence of willful violations; not applicable here. | No willful violations shown; no error in omitting such finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourbon County Bd. of Adjustment v. Currans, 873 S.W.2d 836 (Ky.App.1994) (burden on variance must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Comm’n v. Schmidt, 83 S.W.3d 449 (Ky.2001) (legislative limits on variances require adequate findings)
- Moore v. City of Lexington, 218 S.W.2d 7 (Ky.1948) (hardship standard pre-KRS 100.243; discretion to board)
- Currans, 873 S.W.2d 836 (Ky.App.1994) (distinguishes when findings compel vs. support variance)
- O’Nan v. Ecklar Moore Exp., Inc., 339 S.W.2d 466 (Ky.1960) (definition of substantial evidence and deferential review)
- Kentucky State Racing Comm’n v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298 (Ky.1972) (substantial evidence standard and deference to agency fact-finding)
- Stout v. Jenkins, 268 S.W.2d 643 (Ky.1954) (appellate review of agency findings)
- Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Kentucky, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575 (Ky.2002) (upholds agency findings where evidence supports decision)