Request By:
Mr. Richard C. Bernhardt
Director, Hopkinsville - Christian
County Planning Commission
Courthouse Annex, Room 307
Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of December 8 in which you state that the Christian County Fiscal Court, together with the city of Hopkinsville and other incorporated cities within the county, established the Hopkinsville-Christian County Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. The comprehensive plan was adopted followed by the adoption of subdivision regulations based on the comprehensive plan. However, in an action taken on December 6, 1977 the fiscal court repealed its approval of the existing comprehensive plan. This action apparently cast some doubt on the legal existence of the subdivision regulations and their enforcement, and you desire an opinion as to whether or not the planning commission is required to continue to review subdivision plats in view of the action taken by the fiscal court.
Our response to your question would be in the affirmative. This office has taken the position in a number of opinions that though the statement of objectives, with respect to a comprehensive plan as required by KRS 100.193, must be adopted by the legislative bodies of the various members of the planning unit, the comprehensive plan itself is to be adopted pursuant to KRS 100.197 by the planning commission alone. In other words, the various legislative bodies are only empowered to amend and adopt the statement of objectives and principles as provided in KRS 100.193 but there is no provision for referring the comprehensive plan or its elements to the fiscal court or the particular legislative body of a city for adoption under the terms of KRS 100.197. In this connection we are enclosing copies of OAG 76-86 and OAG 75-708.
Thus, in view of the fact that the fiscal court is unauthorized to enact or approve the comprehensive plan in the first place, it has no authority to repeal the plan. This means in effect that the validity of the existing comprehensive plan is in no way affected by the fiscal court's action taken on December 6 to repeal the plan. The same is of course true with respect to the subdivision regulations.
Since the comprehensive plan is still legally in existence and applies to all members of the planning unit, including the county, the planning commission is legally required to continue to review and approve subdivision plats pursuant to KRS 100.277.
Of course, the county can always withdraw completely from planning and zoning as we have held in a number of opinions, namely OAG 77-321, OAG 74-701, and OAG 74-853-A. However, once the county withdraws, it cannot plan independently unless it goes through the interrogation procedure initially provided for the establishment of an independent planning unit pursuant to KRS 100.117.