Layle v. City of Mission Hills
116095
| Kan. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- John and Shari Layle own a Mission Hills house with a preexisting, nonconforming wood fence; prior variances were granted in 1994 and 2000 to allow replacement per existing specs.
- By 2012 the fence pickets and rails deteriorated; Layles sought a building permit to remove and replace all pickets and rails (about 395–400 feet) but to leave the treated wood posts in place.
- The City Administrator denied administrative approval, concluding the work was a "replacement" (requiring new variances) rather than a "repair" (which can be administratively approved under the Code).
- The Architectural Review Board approved the plans aesthetically but required new variances; the Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed the City Administrator that the work was a full replacement.
- The district court applied a reasonableness standard and affirmed the Board; on appeal the court of appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and addressed whether the work was a "repair" or "full replacement."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Layle) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should review Board's interpretation de novo or for reasonableness | De novo review is required for interpreting zoning terms | District court should apply reasonableness review under K.S.A. 12-759(f) | Interpretation of regulatory terms is a question of law; review is de novo; district court erred applying only reasonableness |
| Whether removing/replacing all pickets and rails (leaving posts) is a "repair" or "full replacement" | Replacing fence sections (pickets/rails) is normal maintenance/repair; not full replacement because posts remain | The large scope (nearly 400 ft) and replacement of all visible components constitutes a full replacement, requiring variances | Replacing fence "sections" (pickets/rails between posts) is a repair under Code definitions; not a full replacement |
| Whether the work changes the "exterior surface" so as to disqualify repair status | No — materials and appearance are same; only deteriorated wood is replaced | Yes — replacing visible pickets changes the exterior surface, disallowing repair treatment | Court rejects City's reading; "exterior surface" means material/character changes (e.g., wood → metal), not mere restoration of same material |
| Whether Board's requirement of new variances was reasonable and supported | N/A (if work is repair, variances not required) | Board acted within authority to require variances for full replacements | Because Board misconstrued the plain language and the evidence supports "repair," the Board's decision was not substantially supported and was unreasonable; reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. City of Wichita Employees' Retirement Bd. of Trustees, 291 Kan. 266 (2010) (statutory/regulatory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589 (1996) (courts independently interpret statutes and regulations)
- Unruh, 289 Kan. (Kansas precedent applying de novo review to variance-criteria interpretation)
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs, 289 Kan. 926 (2009) (reasonableness review distinct from legal questions such as preemption/statutory interpretation)
- Leffel v. City of Mission Hills, 47 Kan. App. 2d 8 (2011) (discussing scope of appellate review in zoning matters)
- Hacker v. Sedgwick County, 48 Kan. App. 2d 164 (2012) (applying de novo review to statutory interpretation of variance standards)
- Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591 (1978) (framework for reviewing reasonableness of zoning board actions)
- May v. Cline, 304 Kan. 671 (2016) (agency interpretation of its own regulations not entitled to deference)