KEOUGH V. WOODFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
ZONING:
2006-CA-001745
PUBLISHED: REVERSING AND REMANDING
PANEL: WINE PRESIDING; THOMPSON, HENRY CONCUR
COUNTY: WOODFORD
DATE RENDERED: 10/05/2007
Post applied for a conditional use permit to operate a “tourist home” on his property. Post had filed an earlier such application in which the Planning Director supplied a definition for “tourist home” from a development definition book, because it was not defined in the Woodford County zoning ordinances. The Board of Adjustments (“Board”) conducted a hearing on the new application in which the Planning Director recommended the same “tourist home” definition. The Board voted unanimously to grant the conditional use permit.
Two neighboring property owners appealed (the “Neighbors”). The circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Neighbors argued that the Planning Director exceeded her authority by providing a definition for “tourist home” and that the Board exceeded its authority in accepting the definition. The court disagreed, stating that the zoning ordinance’s scheme for granting conditional use permits provides a sufficient framework for the Planning Director to interpret the ordinance to clarify the intent of the fiscal court. The court also stated that because the Planning Director recommended a definition synonymous with “bed and breakfast,” the court concluded that the decision was not clearly erroneous.
The Neighbors also argued that the Board’s decision was arbitrary because Post’s proposed use of his property did not fit the definition of “tourist home.” The court agreed, stating that since “tourist home” was to be synonymous with “bed and breakfast,” and Post’s proposed use was for 12 bedrooms with the owner not living on the property, the proposed use did not meet the bed and breakfast definition of less than 9 bedrooms with the owner residing on the property. The court reversed and ordered that the conditional use permit be set aside.
Digest by Samuel Hinkle
