Charles and Penny Deweese applied for a CUP to begin operating a rock quarry on two adjoining properties in Simpson County, Kentucky. After opponents of the rock quarry sought review of board of zoning adjustment’s approval of quarry’s conditional use permit, Plaintiff sought review of board’s later revocation of the permit and brought an action against the county executive and the county planning and zoning commission for inverse condemnation and tortious interference with contracts regarding the revocation of the permit and ordinances approved by other bodies that restricted commercial trucks on a road next to the quarry. The Circuit Court, Simpson County, decided that the permit was properly issued, decided that the permit was improperly revoked, and dismissed the action against county executive and planning commission.
The court first determined that the Board had a sufficient basis for issuing the CUP. Here, the local zoning ordinance listed a limestone quarry as an available conditional use for agricultural zones. Additionally, the Board found that the Deweese quarry would serve the public interest by providing jobs in the community while also lowering prices for construction materials. At the hearing, the Board relied on a report filed by Joe Perry, the local planning and zoning administrator, who stated that it would be impossible for Plaintiff to comply with the CUP. However, the CUP only required trucks to exit the quarry by turning west on Ditmore Ford Road, while the ordinances only banned commercial trucks from traveling on Ditmore Ford Road. As such, the ordinances did not prevent the Deweeses from operating the quarry, nor did they restrict all vehicles from using Ditmore Ford Road. Accordingly, the court held that the Board erroneously concluded that the ordinances rendered compliance with the CUP “impossible.”
As for the claims against Jim Henderson and the Planning Commission, the court found that the Planning Commission played no role in the subject matter of this lawsuit. Under the applicable ordinance, it was the Board, rather than the Planning Commission, which heard and decided the CUP. Jim Henderson, as the County Judge/Executive, only oversaw the executive functions of the county government, and did not enact legislation. Accordingly, dismissal of Drakes Creek’s lawsuit was found to be appropriate, and the decisions of the Simpson Circuit Court were affirmed.
Drakes Creek Holding Co LLC v Franklin-Simpson County, 518 SW 3d 174 (KY App. 3/3/2017)
Posted by: Patricia Salkin | July 25, 2017
KY Appeals Court Holds Board of Zoning Adjustment Had a Sufficient Basis for Issuing a Conditional Use Permit for a Quarry
Posted in Special Use/Exception
Categories
- Access to Government
- Accessory Uses
- ADA
- Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
- Adirondacks
- Adult Entertainment Facilities
- Aesthetics
- Affordable Housing
- Aging
- Agricultural Uses
- Airports
- Alcohol Sales
- Alienation of parkland
- Amending Zoning
- Annexation
- Architectural Review Board
- Authority to Zone
- Big Box/Formula Retail
- Book Reviews
- Brownfields
- Building Codes
- Cemeteries
- Climate Change
- Collateral Estoppel
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation/Eminent Domain
- Conditions on Approval
- Conservation Easements
- Constructive Approval
- Contract Zoning
- Current Caselaw
- Current Caselaw – New York
- Density Bonus
- Development Agreements
- Development Rights Agreements
- Discrimination
- Drones
- Dual Zone Parcel
- Due Process
- Easements
- Educational Use
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Enforcement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Review
- Equal Protection
- Equitable Estoppel
- Ethics
- Exactions
- Exclusionary Zoning
- Exemption from Zoning
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
- Fair Housing Act Amendments
- Family
- Federal Preemption
- Fees
- FHA
- Financing
- first amendment
- Floating Zones
- Flood Control
- FOIL
- Food Trucks
- Formula Retail
- Fourth Amendment
- Fracking
- GIS
- Growth Management
- Hearings
- Highways and Roads
- Historic Preservation
- Home Occupations
- Homeland Security
- Host Community Agreements
- Hours of Operation
- Housing
- Immunity
- Impact Fees
- Incentive Zoning
- Inclusionary Zoning
- Intergovernmental Conflicts
- inverse condemnation
- Junkyards
- Laches
- Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling
- Mediation
- Medical Marijuana
- Mining
- Mobile Homes
- moratoria
- New Legislation
- Non-Conforming Uses
- Notice
- Nuisance
- Oceans
- official map
- Overlay Zone
- Paper Streets
- Pine Barrens
- Planned Development Districts
- Players in the Land Use Game
- Preemption
- Procedural Issues
- Certiorari
- Consent Decree
- Declaratory Relief
- Estoppel
- Final Decisions
- Findings
- Injunctive Relief
- Intervention
- Judicial Abstention
- Jurisdiction
- Legislative vs Adjudicatory
- Mandamus
- Mootness
- Necessary Parties
- Notice of Decision
- Prior Precedent
- Referral Requirements
- Res Judicata
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- Time of Application Rule
- Property Rights
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Purchase of Development Rights
- qualified immunity
- Redevelopment
- Referenda
- Regional Planning
- Religious Uses – Non-RLUIPA
- Remedies
- Residency Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rezoning
- Ripeness
- RLUIPA
- Second Amendment
- Section 1983 Liability
- Senior Housing
- Setback Requirement
- Short Term Rentals
- sign
- Signs
- Site Plan Review
- SLAPP Suits
- Smart Growth
- solar energy
- Special Facts Exception
- Special Use/Exception
- Spot Zoning
- Standing
- Statewide Planning
- Statute of Limitations
- Straddled Parcels
- Student Housing
- Subdivision Regulation
- Takings
- tatoo parlors
- Transfer of Development Rights
- Uncategorized
- Urbanism
- Utilities
- Variances
- Various Uses
- Vested Rights
- Waivers
- Wetlands
- Wind Development
- Wireless Communications
- Younger Abstention Doctrine
- Zoning – Interpretation
- Zoning Administration
- Zoning Boards of Appeal
- Zoning Map
- Zoning-Adopting/Amending

Leave a Reply