BAESSLER V. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ZONING: CHANGE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2006-CA-001352
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: DIXON PRISIDING; GRAVES CONCURS; TAYLOR CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY
COUNTY: FAYETTE
DATE RENDERED: 09/28/2007
Baesler applied to amend the Fayette County comprehensive plan to change to light industrial use the portion of his property that bordered the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center (“Blue Sky”), which is an industrial area containing manufacturing and other industrial facilities. Baesler’s property was considered a buffer under the comprehensive plan, separating Blue Sky from agricultural land.
After a public hearing, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission (“Commission”) denied the application. On remand by a circuit court reversal because of due process violations, the Commission again denied the application. Baesler appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed.
On appeal, Baesler argued that the Commission’s finding of fact that the Blue Sky Wastewater Treatment Facility was inadequate was not supported by substantial evidence. The court disagreed, holding that although there was conflicting evidence, there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision.
Baesler also claimed that the Commission’s finding that expanding Blue Sky to include Baesler’s property would negatively impact agricultural property lacked substantial evidence, a claim rejected by the court because substantial testimony and evidence supported the finding.
Finally, Baesler argued that his procedural due process rights were violated because a Councilwoman from Lexington testified at the hearing stating that her district opposed expanding Blue Sky. Baesler claimed that the testimony was improper and unduly influenced the Commission’s decision. The court disagreed, stating that there was no evidence of impropriety, and therefore Baesler’s due process rights were not infringed.
Digested by Sam Hinkle
