Request By:
Mr. Carl Brown
Jefferson County Commissioner
Courthouse
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Asst. Deputy Attorney General
Jefferson County Fiscal Court has a serious problem with deadlock decisions in zoning matters. The Jefferson County Fiscal Court is composed of three county commissioners and the county judge/executive. Certain zoning matters which require amendment of the master zoning plan are reviewed by the planning commission, which recommends action to be taken by the Fiscal Court. The matter is then brought before Fiscal Court for a vote.
At this point the Jefferson Fiscal Court has deadlocked on two cases over eight times. Your question is: Where does the deadlock or tie vote of fiscal Court leave the zoning amendment recommendation of the Planning commission?
We concluded in OAG 78-815, to which you referred, that zoning regulations should be enacted as ordinances. This would include amendments to zoning regulations. See KRS 67.083(3)(k). Thus the formal requisites of ordinances, as covered in KRS 67.075 through 67.078 must be observed. KRS 67.078(1) requires a vote of the majority of the Fiscal Court to pass an ordinance. This simply means 3 out of 4 members must vote affirmatively for the zoning ordinance. In addition, KRS 100.211(1) provides that it shall take a majority of the entire Fiscal Court to override the recommendation of the planning commission.
Under KRS 67.070(3) when there is a tie vote in the Fiscal Court in the selection of any officer or employee to be selected by the Fiscal Court, a deadlock results. The subsection provides for the resolution of such a deadlock. It is very similar to the tie-vote provision of KRS 67.040, relating to the justices of the peace Fiscal Court system. See OAG 73-394, to which you referred.
In your situation, since the resolution of a tie vote relates only to personnel selection, it is our opinion that the deadlock simply resulted in no action at all, i.e., no zoning ordinance. A majority vote is necessary to pass an ordinance.
It is true that KRS 100.211(1) provides that it shall take a majority of the Fiscal Court to override the recommendation of the planning commission. Thus the Fiscal Court, by a majority vote, can vary from the recommendations of the planning commission, in enacting a zoning change. However, where the Fiscal Court winds up with a tie vote on the proposed zoning amendment, such tie vote does not result in a silent or constructive approval or enactment of the planning commission's recommended zoning amendment. To so construe these interrelated statutes of KRS Chapters 67 and 100 would result in an absurdity and would obviously and flagrantly violate the principle of KRS 67.075 through 67.078 that such zoning regulations be enacted as ordinances. The letter of a statute will not be followed where it leads to an absurd conclusion.
Martin v. Louisville Motors, 276 Ky. 696, 125 S.W.2d 241 (1939). In addition, these interrelated statutes must be read in pari materia (same subject) to give proper effect to each.
Indiana Truck Corporation v. Hurry Up Broadway Co., 222 Ky. 561, 1S.W.2d 989 (1928) 991.
The provision in KRS 100.211(1) that a majority of Fiscal Court is necessary to override the recommendation of the planning commission has this practical meaning: It means that where a majority votes for a zoning amendment, the majority vote will be sufficient to enact the amendment as recommended or be sufficient for a variation therefrom.