Pisgah Community Historical Association, Inc. v. Brian Traugott, in His Capacity as Mayor of Versailles, Kentucky ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •             RENDERED: JANUARY 27, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Court of Appeals
    NO. 2020-CA-1054-MR
    PISGAH COMMUNITY HISTORICAL
    ASSOCIATION, INC.; ABE FOSSON;
    AMI SELF; ANN HAYES; ANNE
    KEOGH; CARRIE FARRIS; DAN
    ROSENBERG; DONNA ALLEN; ED
    ROSS; ERIC SELF; FRANCES ROSS;
    JUDY WELLS; KATHLEEN GROSS;
    MARGARET DUNLAP; MICHAEL
    MCMAHON; NATANYA
    MCMAHON; NEIL FARRIS; SALLE J.
    COCHRAN; SUSAN FOSSON;
    WHITNEY DUNLAP, III; AND
    WILLIAM FISHBACK                                     APPELLANTS
    APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT
    v.       HONORABLE JEREMY MICHAEL MATTOX, JUDGE
    ACTION NO. 16-CI-00227
    BRIAN TRAUGOTT, IN HIS
    CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF
    VERSAILLES, KENTUCKY;
    ALLYSON LYSTER; ANN MILLER
    AS MEMBER OF THE CITY
    COUNCIL; BEN CHANDLER;
    BRYAN LYSTER; CARL ELLIS AS
    MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL;
    CHAD WELLS AS A MEMBER OF
    THE COMMISSION; CONNIE
    SNYDER; CRM COMPANIES, A
    KENTUCKY ASSUMED NAMED
    CORPORATION; CRM
    DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A
    KENTUCKY CORPORATION; DOUG
    ARNOLD; EDGEWOOD FARM LLC,
    A KENTUCKY LIMITED LIABILITY
    COMPANY; EDWARD MCCLEES AS
    A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION;
    GARY JONES AS MEMBER OF THE
    CITY COUNCIL; GLENN
    BROMAGEN; GRAY LYSTER;
    HARDEN FIELDS, IV; J.D. WOLF AS
    A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION;
    JENNIFER CHANDLER; JERI
    HARTLEY AS A MEMBER OF THE
    COMMISSION; JIM BOGGS AS
    CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION;
    JOHN DOWDELL; KEN KERKHOFF
    AS MEMBER OF THE CITY
    COUNCIL; KIRSTEN JOHNSON;
    MARGARET LYSTER; MARY
    BRADLEY AS MEMBER OF THE
    CITY COUNCIL; NATALIE LYSTER;
    NEWTOWNANNER STUD FARM,
    LLC; OWEN ROBERTS AS MEMBER
    OF THE CITY COUNCIL; PATTY
    PERRY AS A MEMBER OF THE
    COMMISSION; RANDAL
    BOHANNON AS A MEMBER OF
    THE COMMISSION; RICH SCHEIN
    AS A MEMBER OF THE
    COMMISSION; RICHARD SNYDER;
    ROBERT CLAY; SANDRA
    BROMAGEN; SARAH FARISH; THE
    CITY COUNCIL OF VERSAILLES,
    KENTUCKY; THE CITY OF
    VERSAILLES, KENTUCKY; TIM
    PARROT AS A MEMBER OF THE
    -2-
    COMMISSION; VERSAILLES-
    MIDWAY-WOODFORD COUNTY
    PLANNING COMMISSION;
    VIRGINIA FIELDS; WAYNE
    LYSTER; WILLIAM CRAIG
    TURNER; WILLIAM S. FARISH;
    WINSTAR FARM, LLC; AND
    WOODFORD COALITION, INC.                     APPELLEES
    AND
    NO. 2020-CA-1058-MR
    PAYNE’S MILL COMMITTEE, INC.;
    ALLYSON LYSTER; BEN
    CHANDLER; BRYAN LYSTER;
    CONNIE SNYDER; DOUG ARNOLD;
    GLENN BROMAGEN; GRAY
    LYSTER; JENNIFER CHANDLER;
    JOHN DOWDELL; KIRSTEN
    JOHNSON; MARGARET LYSTER;
    NATALIE HENTON LYSTER;
    NEWTOWNANNER STUD FARM
    KENTUCKY, LLC; RICHARD
    SNYDER; ROBERT CLAY; SANDRA
    BROMAGEN; SARAH S. FARISH;
    WAYNE LYSTER; WILLIAM S.
    FARISH; WINSTAR FARM, LLC;
    AND WOODFORD COALITION, INC.               APPELLANTS
    APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT
    v.      HONORABLE JEREMY MICHAEL MATTOX, JUDGE
    ACTION NO. 16-CI-00228
    -3-
    THE CITY OF VERSAILLES; ABE
    FOSSON; AMI SELF; ANN HAYES;
    ANN MILLER, IN HER OFFICIAL
    CAPACITY; ANNE KEOGH; BRIAN
    TRAUGOTT, MAYOR; CARL ELLIS,
    IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
    CARRIE FARRIS; CHAD WELLS, IN
    HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CRM
    COMPANIES (ASSUMED NAME OF
    CRM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY);
    DAN ROSENBERG; DENISE LUTZ;
    DONNA J. ALLEN; ED ROSS; ED
    SELF; EDGEWOOD FARM, LLC;
    EDWARD MCCLEES, IN HIS
    OFFICIAL CAPACITY; FRANCIS
    ROSS; GARY JONES, IN HIS
    OFFICIAL CAPACITY; HARDIN
    FIELD; J.D. WOLF, IN HIS OFFICIAL
    CAPACITY; JERI HARTLEY, IN HER
    OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JIM BOGGS,
    IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JUDY
    WELLS; KATHLEEN S. GROSS; KEN
    ACTON; KEN KERKHOFF, IN HIS
    OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MARGARET
    M.W. DUNLAP; MARY BRADLEY,
    IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
    MICHAEL J. MCMAHON; NATANYA
    N. MCMAHON; NEIL FARRIS;
    OWEN ROBERTS, IN HIS OFFICIAL
    CAPACITY; PATTY PERRY, IN HER
    OFFICIAL CAPACITY; RANDAL
    BOHANNON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
    CAPACITY; RICH SCHEIN, IN HIS
    OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SALLIE J.
    COCHRAN; SUSAN FOSSON; TIM
    PARROTT, IN HIS OFFICIAL
    CAPACITY; VERSAILLES CITY
    COUNCIL; VERSAILLES-MIDWAY-
    WOODFORD COUNTY PLANNING
    COMMISSION; VIRGINIA FIELD;
    -4-
    VIVIAN ACTON; WHITNEY
    DUNLAP, III; WILLIAM CRAIG
    TURNER; AND WILLIAM D.
    FISHBACK                                                               APPELLEES
    OPINION
    AFFIRMING
    ** ** ** ** **
    BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
    MCNEILL, JUDGE: This is a zoning case involving 405.25 acres of property
    located in Versailles, Kentucky (hereafter, the “Property”). In 2015, the owners of
    the Property successfully sought a zone change for 68.42 acres to be designated
    within the Urban Service Boundary (“USB”). That result is not being challenged
    here.
    The city of Versailles subsequently sought to annex the remaining
    portion of the Property and to also rezone it in the USB. A public hearing was held
    before the Planning Commission, during which members of the public were
    permitted a limited, but reasonable, time to voice their concerns. It appears from
    the administrative record that the Property may be utilized, in part, to build a new
    hospital. The Planning Commission recommended to approve the annexation and
    -5-
    to amend to the City’s Comprehensive Plan accordingly. These measures were
    unanimously approved by the Versailles City Council.1
    The Appellants are Pisgah Community Historical Association, Inc., et
    al., and Paynes Mill Committee, Inc., et al. Due to their objections to the City
    Council’s actions, Appellants filed suit against the City and various local
    government officers/officials (collectively referred to as the “City”). The
    Woodford Circuit Court issued summary judgment in favor of the City. The court
    specifically found that Appellants lacked standing to contest the annexation, that
    they were not deprived of due process, and that the City’s actions were not
    arbitrary. The court specifically concluded that the City satisfied KRS
    100.213(1)(a), which dictates the findings necessary for map amendments.
    In an eleven-page order further buttressing its well-reasoned summary
    judgment, the circuit court denied Appellants’ motions to alter, amend, or vacate
    its prior decision. In support, the court specifically cited to the written findings
    1
    Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 100.183 discusses the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
    The planning commission of each unit shall prepare a
    comprehensive plan, which shall serve as a guide for public and
    private actions and decisions to assure the development of public
    and private property in the most appropriate relationships. The
    elements of the plan may be expressed in words, graphics, or other
    appropriate forms. They shall be interrelated, and each element
    shall describe how it relates to each of the other elements.
    -6-
    made by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City. Appellants appealed
    to this Court as a matter of right. Having carefully considered the relevant portions
    of the record and the arguments advanced by the parties, we see no clear factual or
    legal directive that would necessitate reversal in this instance. Therefore, we
    affirm the circuit court.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    A motion for summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings,
    depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file,
    together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
    material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
    law.” CR2 56.03. And as this Court observed in Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v.
    County of Boone:
    since zoning determinations are purely the responsibility
    and function of the legislative branch of government,
    such determinations are not subject to review by the
    judiciary except for the limited purpose of considering
    whether such determinations are arbitrary. [American
    Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County
    Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 
    379 S.W.2d 450
    , 456 (Ky.
    1964))]. Arbitrariness review is limited to the
    consideration of three basic questions: (1) whether an
    action was taken in excess of granted powers, (2)
    whether affected parties were afforded procedural due
    process, and (3) whether determinations are supported by
    substantial evidentiary support. 
    Id.
    2
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
    -7-
    
    180 S.W.3d 464
    , 467 (Ky. 2005). “Substantial evidence means evidence
    that is sufficient to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people.” Smith v.
    Teachers’ Ret. Sys. of Kentucky, 
    515 S.W.3d 672
    , 675 (Ky. App. 2017) (citation
    omitted).
    However, decision makers are not free to be
    biased or prejudicial when performing nonjudicial
    functions. To the contrary, any bias or prejudicial
    conduct which demonstrates “malice, fraud,
    or corruption” is expressly prohibited as
    arbitrary. [National-Southwire Aluminum v. Big
    Rivers Elec. Corp., 
    785 S.W.2d 503
    , 515 (Ky.
    App. 1990)]. Furthermore, decisions tainted by
    conflicts of interest or blatant favoritism are also
    prohibited as arbitrary. See [City of Louisville v.
    McDonald, 
    470 S.W.2d 173
    , 177 (Ky. 1971)].
    Hilltop Basic Res., Inc., 180 S.W.3d at 469. With these standards in mind, we turn
    to the facts of the present case.
    ANALYSIS
    To be clear, there are two separate issues here concerning the
    Property: 1) the annexation; and 2) the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
    Before we address these matters, however, we must first dispense with the City’s
    argument that Appellants failed to timely appeal from the Planning Commission’s
    determinations. See KRS 100.347. The City did not cross-appeal on this issue.
    Therefore, it is not properly before this Court. Without the authority to review that
    issue, we now proceed to the remaining justiciable claims.
    -8-
    We begin with the argument raised by Appellant-Paynes Mill
    Committee Inc., et al., that the circuit court erroneously determined Appellants
    lacked standing to contest the annexation.
    Pursuant to KRS 81A.420, those in the area to be
    annexed who are resident voters or property owners
    have standing to contest annexation. Also, a taxpayer
    who does not vote or own property in the area to be
    annexed but who does live in the municipality that is
    seeking the annexation has standing “if he shows that he
    is being personally, substantially and adversely affected
    by the annexation, and that the damage to himself is
    different in character from that sustained by the public
    generally.”
    Fourroux v. City of Shepherdsville, 
    148 S.W.3d 303
    , 306 (Ky. App. 2004) (citing
    King v. City of Corbin, 
    535 S.W.2d 85
    , 86 (Ky. 1976)). In its summary judgment
    order, the circuit court cited to its judicial predecessor’s order granting the City’s
    motion to dismiss due to lack of standing. That prior order states in relevant part
    as follows: “In this case, none of the [Appellants] claim to reside or own property
    in the area that was annexed or live in the city limits of the City of Versailles.
    According to statutory and case law, one of these requirements must be met prior
    to any showing of the adverse effect of the annexation.” Similarly, Appellants
    have not provided this Court direct evidence challenging the circuit court’s
    findings pursuant to Fourroux. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the circuit
    court erred in dismissing Appellants’ challenge to the City’s annexation.
    -9-
    Appellants further argue that the changes to the Comprehensive Plan
    violated the “research” requirement of KRS 100.191. In support they cite to Hines
    v. Pinchback-Halloran Volkswagen, Inc:
    A comprehensive plan cannot be adopted by
    the Planning Commission without compliance with
    the research requirements of KRS 100.191 and the
    holding of a public hearing as required by KRS
    100.197. The procedure for amendment of the
    comprehensive plan is the same as for the adoption
    of the original plan. KRS 100.197.
    
    513 S.W.2d 492
    , 493 (Ky. 1974).3
    However, KRS 100.197(1), provides in relevant part that, when
    zoning authority amends or readopts a Comprehensive Plan, “[i]t shall not be
    necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the research done at the time of
    the original adoption pursuant to KRS 100.191, when the commission finds that the
    original research is still valid. ” (Emphasis added.) In its findings of facts in
    support of amending the 2011 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission
    specifically determined “the required research that was done pursuant to KRS
    100.191 and which was the basis for the adoption of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan
    remains valid for the purposes of making the requested amendment.” Therefore,
    3
    See also 3A Robert W. Keats, Comprehensive plan – Periodic review, Ky. Prac. Real Estate
    Transactions § 28:16 n.2 (citing Hines, 
    513 S.W.2d 492
    ; and Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Ct. v.
    Sternberg, No. 2002-CA-000286-MR, 
    2003 WL 21480267
    , at *2 (Ky. App. Jun. 27, 2003)).
    -10-
    the exception to the research requirement provided in KRS 100.197 has been
    satisfied here.
    The present record contains many documents memorializing the
    extensive process that unfolded before the Planning Commission, City Council,
    and the Woodford Circuit Court – each of which either approved or affirmed the
    planning and zoning decisions at issue here. We are not the entity most apprised of
    the uniquely local concerns underlying the present case. Rather, this Court is
    charged with determining whether these legislative decisions were arbitrary. For
    the foregoing reasons, we conclude that they are not. See Hilltop, 180 S.W.3d at
    469 (internal quotation marks omitted) (“At its core, arbitrariness review is
    concerned primarily with the product [of legislative or administrative action], and
    not with the motive or method which produced it.”).
    Similarly, we cannot conclude that Appellants were denied due
    process. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“The fundamental
    requirement of procedural due process is simply that all affected parties be given
    the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”).
    Nothing has been presented to the Court indicating that the underlying decisions
    failed to comply with the requisite statutory directives, lacked reasonable
    consideration, or lacked public discourse. They were certainly not arbitrary. Any
    remaining arguments not specifically addressed herein either lack a sufficient basis
    -11-
    for further discussion, or are otherwise unpersuasive. Therefore, we affirm the
    circuit court.
    ALL CONCUR.
    BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:                   BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES:
    Christopher M. Clendenen                 T. Bruce Simpson, Jr.
    Lexington, Kentucky                      Lexington, Kentucky
    W. Henry Graddy, IV.                     Preston C. Worley
    Dorothy T. Rush                          Lexington, Kentucky
    Versailles, Kentucky
    William K. Moore
    Versailles, Kentucky
    -12-