Request By:
Ed Holmes
Director of Housing and Planning
Bluegrass Area Development District
3220 Nicholasville Road
Lexington, Kentucky 40503
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Ross T. Carter, Assistant Attorney General
You have written to the Attorney General regarding a situation involving an urban renewal project in Versailles. You state that the city adopted an urban renewal plan in accordance with KRS chapter 99, but the plan provides tighter restrictions than does the general zoning ordinance adopted under KRS chapter 100. You state that developers are acquiring property to construct housing units that meet the zoning regulations but do not comply with the urban renewal plan. You ask how the conflict between these land use regulations should be resolved.
KRS chapter 99 authorizes a city to create an agency to carry out an area development project under KRS 99.330 to 99.510 or an urban renewal project under KRS 99.520 to 99.590. As a practical matter the provisions for development plans and urban renewal projects are the same (see KRS 99.550). In general urban renewal plans differ from ordinary zoning in that the agency is authorized to assume ownership of property in deteriorated areas and to provide for the improvement and disposition of the property. Urban renewal begins with a plan, which must "conform to the general or master plan for the development of the community as a whole." KRS 99.380, 99.540. Apparently the general or master plan means the comprehensive plan adopted by a planning commission pursuant to KRS 100.183. The requirement that the urban renewal plan conform to the comprehensive plan was perhaps intended to prevent conflicts such as the one that has arisen in Versailles. Although we have not examined the comprehensive plan for Versailles, we assume that it reflects the contents of the zoning ordinance and that the urban renewal plan does not conform to it.
Although the statutes were drawn to prevent conflicts between chapters 99 and 100, we conclude that the provisions of KRS 99.380 require that development comply with the urban renewal plan. That statute provides that
no building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any structure or use within the area (except for construction or uses which are necessary for the immediate protection of the public health or safety) without the approval in writing by the agency, based upon a determination by the agency that the proposed construction is not inconsistent with the development plan.
The statute restricts developers to the construction of buildings that are consistent with the urban renewal plan, regardless of any inconsistent provisions in the zoning ordinance.
Although developers may be denied building permits for construction that does not comply with the urban renewal plan, they may appeal the denial to circuit court under KRS 99.390. It is possible that a court would resolve the conflict by giving priority to the zoning ordinance on the grounds that the failure to draft the urban renewal plan in compliance with the comprehensive plan renders the urban renewal plan ineffective. Since the statutes provide no guidance regarding the issues or standards of review applicable to such appeals, we cannot conjecture on the outcome of an appeal.