As is most communities, there are varying interests that come into play with respect to land use and development. Many differences are decided in court. We will attempt to post legal decisions of importance to Oldham County here on the website.
According to a draft paper written by David D. Foster and Anita A. Summers, (Current State Legislative and Judicial Profiles on Land-Use Regulations in the U.S., September 20, 2005, Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania), "Kentucky courts have developed a jurisprudence that is neither supportive nor restrictive of development. Particularly in the areas of spot zoning and impact fees, the courts have articulated some meaningful restrictions on municipal power but in applying these restrictions, the courts have been evenly supportive and restrictive of municipal regulation."
With respect to Impact Fees / Extractions, Foster and Summers write: "Although there is limited case law in this area, the rule in the Kentucky courts is clear: 'a developer should not be made to contribute to the cost of public improvements in an amount that far exceeds the anticipated use necessitated by his/her development.' (Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't vs Schneider and Lampton v. Pinaire).
"In specifically rejecting a test that allows for contributions only where the necessity for new public improvements is 'uniquely attributable' to the development, the court has instead held only that 'there must be a reasonable connection between the condition placed on the developer and the purpose of the condition.' (Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Schneider). Foster and Summers contend that the courts have been nearly evenly split in upholding and restricting municipal regulation.
A recent Oldham County case, (Burke et al v. Oldham County Board of Adjustment and Appeals; Liters, Inc.; Rock Springs Farms, III, Inc.; and Mary A. Haunz, Kentucky Court of Appeals,) rendered August 29, 2003, stated:
Public policy mandates that private and
corporate citizens contribute to the costs
of improving and maintaining public
facilities when their developments or
businesses place burdens on those
facilities. See Lampton v. Pinaire, Ky.
App., 610 S.W.2d 915 (1980) and Lexington-
Fayette Urban County Government v.
Schneider, Ky. App., 849 S.W.2d 557 (1992).
The Lampton case cited in the Liter Quarry case above is actually a landmark case for land use in Kentucky is has cited in a Supreme Court case as well as numerous Kentucky cases. A recent case, City of Berea, Kentucky, and Berea City Planning Commission v. Berea Area Development, LLC (Kentucky Court of Appeals, rendered 2004) provides a good overview of that case while ruling it was not applicable in the Berea case:
The City also argues that it has a general authority to require the developer to bear the cost of additional public facilities made necessary by the development, citing Lampton v. Pinaire, Ky. App., 610 S.W.2d 915, 919 (1980). Unfortunately, a review of the Lampton case reveals that the case does not really support their position here. Lampton dealt with a situation where a developer was required to bear the cost of an improvement to a public roadway, where the development would significantly increase traffic on the roadway. While the case does indeed state that public policy requires that a developer be required to bear the cost of additional public facilities made necessary by the development, we do not believe that this is the type of improvement where this policy should apply. In Lampton, the development would otherwise have required the government to condemn additional property for an improvement to the roadway at public expense, due to the increase in use of the roadway created by the private development. It was reasonable to require the developer to bear that cost. In this case, however, the sidewalk is not something that would otherwise be created at public expense; it is desired strictly for public convenience at private expense. Therefore, the principle announced in Lampton is inapplicable here.
A Court of Appeals case rendered on 1999 (Martin v. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District; and Jefferson County) also addressed Lampton and its limitation in a taking case:
We have long recognized that a taking exercised as part of the government’s police powers, such as zoning and subdivision regulations, do not require compensation under Section 13 of the Kentucky Constitution. An individual owner of land who wants to develop or subdivide his land may be required to burden his property with rights-of-way, utility easements, parks, etc. to relieve society of the reasonably anticipated burdens to be caused by the development. This is a permissive taking. However, a developer should not be made to construct or contribute to the cost of public improvements that exceed the burden caused by his development. That is a taking without just compensation.
The following two cases are frequently cited in land use cases but are not available on the web:
Lampton v. Pinaire (Ky App. 1980)
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Schneider (Ky App. 1992)
Click on the cases below to review Kentucky Court of Appeal decisions:
Burke et al v. Oldham County Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Ky App No. 2002-CA-001695-MR)