Boone Creek Properties, LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment
2014 Ky. LEXIS 440
| Ky. | 2014Background
- Property owned by Boone Creek zoned Agricultural-Residential; Board granted a conditional use permit in 2000 limited to a private fishing club.
- Boone Creek (and a related entity) later built and advertised additional commercial recreational features (tree platforms, zip lines, canopy tours) without approval; Board denied a 2011 application to expand uses.
- LFUCG issued a notice of violation directing removal/cessation; Boone Creek appealed the notice but continued operating the nonconforming activities.
- The Board moved for a temporary injunction under CR 65.04 to stop ongoing violations; the Fayette Circuit Court granted the injunction (except it did not require disassembly of zip lines).
- The Court of Appeals denied interlocutory relief; Boone Creek sought further review in the Kentucky Supreme Court, which granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boone Creek) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board proved "irreparable harm" to obtain temporary injunction | Board presented no evidence of tangible harm (environmental, neighbor damage) and court failed to make specific factual finding | Ongoing violation of zoning law irreparably harms public interest and enforcement authority; irreparable harm may be presumed for government enforcement | Court held irreparable-harm finding was made and not clearly erroneous; adopted rule that irreparable harm is presumed where government seeks injunction to enforce police power absent rebuttal |
| Burden of proof on irreparable harm | Board had to prove specific imminent harm or inability to enforce final judgment | In police-power enforcement cases, presumption of irreparable harm shifts burden to defendant to rebut | Court held Board need not present evidence of enforcement harm; Boone Creek bore burden to rebut presumption |
| Sufficiency of circuit court findings under CR 65.04(5) | Circuit court failed to make specific factual findings on irreparable harm | Circuit court articulated that irreparable harm exists when a party flagrantly violates zoning after due process and notices | Court found the trial court’s finding (in Conclusions of Law) adequate and not clearly erroneous |
| Standard of review for temporary injunction | N/A (challenge to injunction) | Temporary injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court affirmed that no abuse of discretion occurred in granting injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978) (injunctive relief is addressed to trial court’s discretion)
- Bartman v. Shobe, 353 S.W.2d 550 (Ky. 1962) (equitable discretion in injunctions)
- Oscar Ewing, Inc. v. Melton, 309 S.W.2d 760 (Ky. 1958) (trial court discretion on temporary injunctions not to be disturbed absent abuse)
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Lasege, 53 S.W.3d 77 (Ky. 2001) (interlocutory relief in Supreme Court requires extraordinary cause)
- City of Louisville v. Koenig, 162 S.W.2d 19 (Ky. 1942) (zoning violations can be remedied by preventive court orders)
- Com. ex rel. Cowan v. Wilkinson, 828 S.W.2d 610 (Ky. 1992) (discussed public-confidence argument; distinguishable on facts)