345 S.W.3d 811
Ky.2011Background
- Nash and Torline own adjoining farms (about 28 and 35 acres) in Campbell County, each proposing to divide into five or more-acre tracts for agricultural use; the county saw these as potential residential subdivisions and enacted two ordinances (O-18-04, O-20-04) requiring planning-commission review before conveyances for agricultural purposes; the county clerk refused to record the deeds until planning-commission approval; Nash and Torline challenged that the agricultural exemption should let such divisions bypass subdivision review; the trial court held the ordinances void, and the Court of Appeals reversed; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review for guidance on applying the agricultural exemption to use and division of land; the case centers on whether the proposed conveyances are subject to subdivision regulations or exempt under the agricultural supremacy clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden to prove exemption or non-exemption from subdivision regulations? | Nash argues the county must prove non-exemption. | Campbell County contends the landowner must prove exemption. | Burden on county to show non-exemption; clerk properly refused recording. |
| Are Nash/Torline conveyances exempt from subdivision regulations under the agricultural supremacy clause? | Conveyances should be exempt if five acres+ and for agricultural use. | Conveyances are subdivisions and subject to planning-commission review. | Neither conveyance met all prongs of exemption; not exempt. |
| Do the third prongs of the agricultural exemption (restriction to agricultural use, five-acre contiguity, no new street) bar recording? | Deeds stated agricultural use; frontages met basic requirements. | Some parcels lacked frontage on existing streets or required streets; noncompliant. | Nash fails third prong; Torline cannot meet third prong; thus not exempt. |
| What is the proper role of the county clerk when faced with potentially exempt deeds amid conflicting ordinances? | Clerk should record if deed is facially recordable; ordinances are void. | Clerk must avoid recording until planning commission review clarifies status. | Clerk not in error given ordinances void; deeds themselves were recordable absent valid ordinances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (upholds police power to regulate land use in relation to public welfare)
- Sebastian-Voor Props., LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 265 S.W.3d 190 (Ky.2008) (preemption and comprehensive planning impact on zoning/subdivision authority)
- Kelly v. Cook, 899 S.W.2d 517 (Ky.App.1995) (subdivision regulation authorities and agricultural exemptions guidance)
- Grannis v. Schroder, 978 S.W.2d 328 (Ky.App.1997) (agricultural supremacy clause and application to agricultural uses/divisions)
- Sarver v. Allen County ex rel. Fiscal Court, 582 S.W.2d 40 (Ky.1979) (treatment of public roads and open-to-public roads in subdivision/diversion context)