E. Wayne Bussell v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment, 2023 CA 000509

Wayne and Linda Bussell constructed a six-foot brick wall around their property beginning in 2001, with permits issued under then-valid ordinances allowing such height.
Only three sides were initially completed; in 2016, during a home reconstruction project, they sought to finish the wall on the front property line, without indicating the intended height in their permit application.
After construction, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government notified them that a zoning ordinance change in 2012 limited front yard fences to four feet; their wall now violated this rule.
Bussells sought a variance from the Board of Adjustment, arguing in part that they were “grandfathered in” based on prior approvals and good faith reliance.
The Board denied the variance, finding insufficient special circumstances; the circuit court affirmed, leading to the current appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was denial of the variance arbitrary or unsupported by evidence?	Bussells: Denial was arbitrary; evidence and reliance supported variance	Board: No compelling special circumstances; ordinance applied	Not arbitrary; record does not compel relief
Was there a procedural or due process defect in the denial?	Bussells: Full process and hearing provided	Board: All parties heard, due process observed	No due process violation; procedure proper
Did prior permits or statements create a "grandfathered" right?	Bussells: Past permit and reliance justified completing wall	Board: No written evidence of grandfathering; ordinance governs	No grandfathered right established
Was the burden of proof met for a variance under KRS 100.243?	Bussells: Unique circumstances, no adverse effect	Board: No exceptional circumstances, ordinance clear	Burden not met; variance properly denied

American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Comm'n, 379 S.W.2d 450 (Ky. 1964) (sets standard for reviewing administrative zoning decisions; focuses on arbitrariness)
Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Plan. Comm’n v. Schmidt, 83 S.W.3d 449 (Ky. 2001) (reiterates need for strict statutory findings before granting variance)
Bourbon Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment v. Currans, 873 S.W.2d 836 (Ky. App. 1994) (clarifies applicant’s burden for variance; board need not make findings for denial)
Ball v. Oldham County Planning and Zoning Commission, 375 S.W.3d 79 (Ky. App. 2012) (distinguishes standard for reviewing grant vs. denial of variance)
Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky. App. 1984) (defines what evidence is necessary to compel relief as a matter of law)