ZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: ALLEN V. WOODFORD CO. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (COA 6/29/2007)

ALLEN V. WOODFORD CO. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ZONING:  CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2006-CA-000603
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: ACREE PRESIDING; TAYLOR AND KNOPF CONCUR
COUNTY: WOODFORD
DATE RENDERED: 6/29/2007

The Woodford County Board of Adjustments (the “Board”) granted a conditional use permit to allow a “tourist home.” The Board’s compliance officer, under KRS 100.261 and local authority, supplied a definition of “tourist home” because the zoning regulations did not define the term. Appellants filed a circuit court action seeking to overturn the granting of the conditional use permit. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision, and Appellants appealed.

On appeal, Appellants argued that the Board acted arbitrarily when it relied upon the definition of “tourist home” provided by the compliance officer. The court rejected this argument because Appellants did not appeal from the use of this definition to the Board within 30 days after learning of its use as required under KRS 100.261. Although Appellants did not dispute that they did not appeal to the Board within 30 days, they claimed that because the compliance officer exceeded her authority, KRS 100.261 did not apply. The court disagreed, and affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.

The court also rejected Appellants’ argument that the decision to grant the conditional use permit was an unconstitutional act of arbitrary power. Appellants claimed that the Board acted without guidelines because the ordinance did not define “tourist home.” The court disagreed, stating that KRS 100.237 gave the Board the power to grant conditional use permits, and the zoning regulations allow for a conditional use of a “tourist home.”

By Sam Hinkle

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.