Leffel v. CITY OF MISSION HILLS
270 P.3d 1
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Leffels own 6408 Willow Lane and a vacant 6400 Willow Lane lot in Mission Hills; they seek a building permit for a new residence.
- ARB approved amended designs on May 9, 2006; the ARB's approval was reversed by the BZA on July 13, 2006.
- Trial court reversed the BZA, finding impermissible plebiscite, inconsistent comparison standards, and de novo review.
- Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed deference to final agency action, remanding for reconsideration without undue public sentiment influence.
- On remand, the BZA sent the matter to the ARB for limited review of style/design versus surrounding structures defined as within 500 feet.
- ARB reviewed 75 photographs, visited all 500-foot residences, and issued a recommendation that the project did not conform to surrounding structures; BZA affirmed denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of BZA’s post-remand denial | Leffels argue BZA applied incorrect standard and relied on improper factors. | BZA reasonably reviewed under mandate and deferential standard. | Affirmed BZA decision as lawful and reasonable. |
| Mandate compliance: new look vs look back | BZA used a new look beyond the mandate. | ARB/BZA reconcilied within mandate and allowed narrowed scope. | Procedure complied with appellate mandate. |
| Impermissible plebiscite | BZA improperly weighed neighbor opinions. | No improper plebiscite; decision based on objective factors. | No impermissible plebiscite found. |
| Due process on remand | Leffels were denied opportunity to challenge new evidence. | Remand allowed limited evidence review; full hearing not required. | Due process not violated. |
| Procedural changes for remand | Changes in rules/definitions affected outcome. | Remand permissible; due process allows procedural adjustments. | No reversible error from procedural changes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs, 289 Kan. 926 (2009) (presumption of reasonableness; limited deference in zoning appeals)
- Davenport Pastures v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 291 Kan. 132 (2010) (unlimited review for due process; standards of review)
- State v. DuMars, 37 Kan. App. 2d 600 (2007) (mandate scope; unlimited review on law questions)
- Gump Rev. Trust v. City of Wichita, 35 Kan. App. 2d 501 (2006) (permissible consideration of neighbor input; plebiscite concept)
- Edwards v. State, 31 Kan. App. 2d 778 (2003) (law-of-the-case; mandate limitations)
- Leffel I, Leffel v. City of Mission Hills, No. 99,336, 2008 WL 5134889 (Kan.App.) (2008) (unpublished opinion establishing remand framework)
- Gump Rev. Trust v. City of Wichita, 35 Kan. App. 2d 511 (2006) (neighbor input permissible if relevant to regulatory factors)
- Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390 (2009) (briefs and briefing standards in administrative review)
- Cooke v. Gillespie, 285 Kan. 748 (2008) (statutory/mandate considerations; law-of-the-case)