Request By:
Honorable John L. Arnett
Elizabethtown City Attorney
128 West Dixie Avenue
Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42701
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of February 6 in which you relate that Hardin County and the incorporated cities of the county are in the process of forming a joint planning unit pursuant to KRS 100.121, and in connection therewith you present the following facts and questions:
"(1) At the present time the cities of Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Vine Grove and West Point have their own Planning Commissions and Zoning Regulations. In order to maintain the present Zoning Regulations in the various cities, we propose two procedures as follows:
A. The cities and the county will enter into an agreement to form a Joint Planning Unit. The agreement will provide for the continuation of the present Planning Commission and Boards of Zoning Adjustment for the cities, until the Joint Commission is formed and begins to function with the readoption of the appropriate Zoning Regulations presently in existence. The agreement would further provide for the continuation of the cities of the present Zoning Regulations including Zoning Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Major Street Plan and appropriate Building, Plumbing and Electrical Codes.
Thereafter a Planning Commission will be appointed in conformity with KRS 100.133. The Planning Commission with the legislative bodies and the Fiscal Court will adopt Statements of Objectives and Principals pursuant to KRS 100.193. Immediately after this, the above mentioned agreement will provide for the termination of the present Planning Commissions of the cities. The agreement would also provide that the cities would continue with their present Planning and Zoning Ordinances and Regulations until superseded by their respective legislative bodies.
In the alternative, we propose the following:
B. The cities and the county would join into an agreement to form a Joint Planning Unit. A Planning Commission would be appointed pursuant to the agreement and KRS 100.133. Immediately thereafter, the Planning Commission and the legislative bodies and the Fiscal Court would adopt Statements and Objectives and Principals pursuant to KRS 100.193. Immediately following this, the cities will adopt Interim Zoning Regulations, the same as presently in effect pursuant to KRS 100.201.
Please advise as to which or whether both of the above procedures would be in compliance with the law now applicable to the formation of Planning Units and Interim Zoning Regulations. If the same Zoning Regulations are adopted as are now in existence, is it necessary that a public hearing be held?
(2) Since the cities of Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Vine Grove and West Point have their own Zoning Ordinances and Regulations, can any one or all of these cities exclude themselves and not join the joint venture when interrogated by the county and continue their Planning operation in their respective cities. If any or all of said cities decline to join the Joint Planning Commission and a Joint Commission is formed for the remainder of the county, what Planning Commission would have jurisdiction over lands subsequently annexed by any or all of the cities?"
Our response to your initial question would be that the alternate procedure outlined under (1) B would be the proper procedure for the county and the various cities to follow. It would appear that in order to initiate planning and zoning, following the interrogation procedure outlined in KRS 100.117, the units desiring to join can only do so by initially creating a planning commission composed of all the units of government. Then following the establishment of the joint planning commission, it in turn could readopt as interim legislation under KRS 100.334 the existing zoning regulations applicable to the various cities. We are enclosing copies of OAG 67-21 and OAG 71-440 which we believe applicable to this particular question. The readoption of the existing zoning regulations of the various cities would not require, in our opinion, a public hearing since no actual change is being made in such regulations.
Our response to your second question as to whether or not any of the cities can exclude themselves and plan independently as they are presently doing, would be in the affirmative as held in OAG 71-205 and OAG 75-350, copies enclosed. Also, if a city elects to remain independent, we believe its planning commission would have jurisdiction over any land subsequently annexed under the implied power referred to in KRS 100.131 which defines the area of jurisdiction of an independent planning unit. As the area of the city expands, it is natural that its area of jurisdiction would also expand to embrace the additional territory that would lie within its corporate limits.