K.S.A. » Chapter 12
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 12-708 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-708.

History: L. 1921, ch. 100, § 3; R.S. 1923, § 13-1102; L. 1961, ch. 67, § 1; L. 1963, ch. 76, § 1; L. 1965, ch. 97, § 2; L. 1967, ch. 88, § 1; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Change in zoning classification must be submitted to commission or committee. Armourdale State Bank v. Kansas City, 131 Kan. 419, 421, 292 P. 745.

2. Facts held to amount to compliance with act. Simmonds v. Meyn, 134 Kan. 419, 423, 7 P.2d 506.

3. Ordinance changing zoning classification held invalid for noncompliance with statutory procedure. Ford v. City of Hutchinson, 140 Kan. 307, 308, 311, 37 P.2d 39.

4. Sufficiency of public hearings and public notices discussed. Moore v. City of Pratt, 148 Kan. 53, 55, 79 P.2d 871.

5. Cited; damage action; answer properly pleaded violation pertinent ordinances; contributory negligence. Stafford v. City of Coffeyville, 161 Kan. 311, 316, 168 P.2d 91.

6. Notice of public hearings did not comply with ordinance; zoning ordinance valid. Piper v. Moore, 163 Kan. 565, 569, 570, 571, 572, 183 P.2d 965.

7. Zoning ordinance invalid; no uniform standard for application; illegal delegation of power to property owners. Schulte v. City of Garnett, 186 Kan. 117, 118, 348 P.2d 629.

8. Owners of frontage property located outside city where rezoning sought entitled to be heard; right to bring action challenging rezoning amendment. Koppel v. City of Fairway, 189 Kan. 710, 711, 712, 713, 715, 716, 717, 371 P.2d 113.

9. Mentioned; requiring platting and dedication of small tract for uniformity as prerequisite to rezoning upheld. Hudson Oil Co. v. City of Wichita, 193 Kan. 623, 627, 396 P.2d 271.

10. Action by city in rezoning property not unreasonable. Arkenberg v. City of Topeka, 197 Kan. 731, 733, 735, 736, 421 P.2d 213.

11. Governing body not obligated to zone in conformity with master plan; reasonableness. Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371, 381, 387, 424 P.2d 513.

12. Time elapsing between notice and hearing did not meet statutory requirements; K.S.A. 60-206 inapplicable. Carson v. McDowell, 203 Kan. 40, 41, 43, 452 P.2d 828; 203 Kan. 138, 452 P.2d 831.

13. Evidence insufficient to establish arbitrary conduct in adopting rezoning ordinance; conformity with section. Waterstradt v. Board of Commissioners, 203 Kan. 317, 318, 454 P.2d 445.

14. Cited by trial court in holding rezoning ordinance unreasonable. Coughlin v. City of Topeka, 206 Kan. 552, 553, 554, 480 P.2d 91.

15. Mentioned in holding that certain procedural provisions of city rezoning ordinance directory and not mandatory; adopted ordinance reasonable. Paul v. City of Manhattan, 212 Kan. 381, 383, 384, 387, 511 P.2d 244.

16. Special occupancy permit not an amendment or change of zoning ordinance demanding adherence to procedural requirements hereunder. Weeks v. City of Bonner Springs, 213 Kan. 622, 630, 631, 518 P.2d 427.

17. Rezoning ordinance upheld, judicial rules stated and applied; reasonableness; section complied with. Dent v. City of Kansas City, 214 Kan. 257, 259, 264, 265, 266, 267, 519 P.2d 704.

18. Alteration of proposed zoning amendment by governing board contravened mandatory provisions of section; invalid. City of Manhattan v. Ridgeview Building Co., Inc., 215 Kan. 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 613, 614, 615, 527 P.2d 1009.

19. Ordinance adopted reasonable; valid exercise of police power; properly adopted majority vote of planning commission present constituted required recommendation. Houston v. Board of City Commissioners, 218 Kan. 323, 331, 333, 543 P.2d 1010.

20. Due process does not require governing body to conduct second hearing where complete record before it. Houston v. Board of City Commissioners, 218 Kan. 323, 331, 543 P.2d 1010.

21. Application for rezoning approved by planning commission; non-decisive vote by city council; suit challenging council's action as arbitrary dismissed. Olson v. City of WaKeeney, 218 Kan. 447, 448, 543 P.2d 932.

22. Cited; a public hearing is a prerequisite for proposed amendments to township zoning regulations. Reeves v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 226 Kan. 397, 402, 602 P.2d 93.

23. Owner of option to buy is real party in interest; application for rezoning permissible. Taco Bell v. City of Mission, 234 Kan. 879, 882, 884, 678 P.2d 133 (1984).

24. Validity of zoning ordinance reviewable only under K.S.A. 12-712; no jurisdiction to hear collateral attack under K.S.A. 60-1701. St. John v. City of Salina, 9 Kan. App. 2d 636, 639, 684 P.2d 464 (1984).

25. Cited; rights between property owner and owner of 92-year leasehold interest examined. Bonanza, Inc. v. McLean, 242 Kan. 209, 216, 747 P.2d 792 (1987).

26. Cited; proper statute to challenge city ordinance rezoning property, timeliness of notice of appeal, effective date of ordinance examined. Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 243 Kan. 522, 524, 759 P.2d 113 (1988).

27. Due process and equal protection provisions of 14th amendment to U.S. Constitution considered in denial of rezoning; city entitled to state action immunity from federal antitrust claims. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. Lawrence, Kan., 715 F. Supp. 1000, 1004, 1006, 1008 (1989).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1962–2009 · leading case: Koppel v. City of Fairway, 371 P.2d 113 (Kan. 1962).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Koppel v. City of Fairway, 371 P.2d 113 (Kan. 1962). · cites it 20× “In substance, the city's contention is that inasmuch as the protesters of more than twenty percent of the property fronting across the street to the north and west of the tract proposed to be rezoned are outside the city of Fairway the limitations of section 12-708 do not apply…”
Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 218 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 3× “Intervenors argue that if the legislature intended to authorize the Board to revise or amend, it would have used the words “revise or amend” rather than “override.”
Taco Bell v. City of Mission, 678 P.2d 133 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 4× “Prior to trial, upon motion of Taco Bell, the trial court struck the City's defense that the court lacked jurisdiction over Taco Bell because Taco Bell was not the owner of the property which it desired to rezone as required by K.S.A. 12-708. The Taco Bell site and the Arthur…”
Manly v. City of Shawnee, 194 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 12-708 (Ensley 1982). The procedures upon remand to the planning commission and upon its return to the City were the same as in the current statute.”
Bonanza, Inc. v. McLean, 747 P.2d 792 (Kan. 1987). “The trial court found this fact to be dispositive and did not actually determine whether the defendant was an owner or real party in interest for purposes of K.S.A. 12-708. The trial court ruled that defendant McLean’s exclusive remedy for appealing the zoning amendment was…”
Sprint Print, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 708 P.2d 210 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 4× “In Weeks , the appellants challenged the reasonableness of the City’s approval of a special use permit on the basis that the City did not follow the zoning procedures as required by K.S.A. 12-708. We held: “The fallacy in appellants’ position is that the city council’s…”
R.H. Gump Revocable Trust v. City of Wichita, 131 P.3d 1268 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “There is no allegation that the city did not stricdy comply with the procedure set forth in K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-708. The required notice was given, and two full and complete hearings were held by die planning commission, at which plaintiffs appeared in person or by counsel.”
St. John v. City of Salina, 684 P.2d 464 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs complain that ordinance 80-8810 was not passed by the three-fourths majority required by K.S.A. 12-708 (a protest petition' had been filed) and that ordinance 81-8888 was invalidly passed because it had not been submitted to the chief engineer of the Division of Water…”
Reeves v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs, 602 P.2d 93 (Kan. 1979). “K.S.A. 12-708 requires city planning commissions to hold public hearings with notice on zoning amendments.”
Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 759 P.2d 113 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 3× “) K.S.A. 12-708 provides for the development of zoning plans by the planning commission, the giving of notice of public hearings by the commission, the recommendation of a proposed zoning ordinance to the city, and the city’s adoption thereof by ordinance.”
Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 802 P.2d 494 (Kan. 1990). “802, Conditions of Determination, of the City’s zoning ordinance provides: *494 “Whenever the Planning Commission or Governing Body takes action on an application for an amendment to a zoning ordinance pursuant to K.S.A. 12-708, and amendments thereto, and where such proposed…”
Coughlin v. City of Topeka, 480 P.2d 91 (Kan. 1971). “On May 8, 1969 the City Clerk referred the application back to the Planning Commission as provided for in KSA 12-708 as amended with a request that the Planning Commission reconsider the petition.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.