History:
L. 1939, ch. 94, § 2; L. 1965, ch. 97, § 5; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Applied in upholding trial court's judgment that denial of rezoning was unreasonable. Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 598, 584 P.2d 130.
2. Under facts, decision of board of zoning appeals was reasonable. Mouber v. City of Prairie Village, 6 Kan. App. 2d 972, 974, 637 P.2d 424 (1981).
3. Cities may appeal decisions of zoning boards which may be sued hereunder; granting of variances and conditions therefor considered. City of Olathe v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 10 Kan. App. 2d 218, 220, 221, 222, 696 P.2d 409 (1985).
4. Cited; conditions herein and city ordinance applying to area rather than use variance, height variance as area variance examined. City of Merriam v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 242 Kan. 532, 538, 748 P.2d 883 (1988).
5. Application for rezoning denied; not denial of procedural due process; shielded by state action immunity doctrine. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111 (1991).
6. Denial of opportunity to apply for a building permit is appealable. Mid Gulf Inc. v Bishop, 792 F. Supp. 1205, 1206, 1210, 1211 (1992).
City of Olathe v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 696 P.2d 409 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 11דThe court held that the City had no standing under K.S.A. 12-715 to challenge the variance. In addition, the court held that the Board’s decision to grant the variance was not unreasonable.”
Golden v. City of Overland Park, 584 P.2d 130 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 2דAs to additional factors to be considered in county planning, see K.S.A. 19-2916a where the legislature has enumerated the factors it considers important in the formulation of comprehensive plans for county development.”
Mid Gulf, Inc. v. Bishop, 792 F. Supp. 1205 (D. Kan. 1992). · cites it 5דK.S.A. § 12-715 provides that “appeals to the board may be taken by any person aggrieved .”
City of Merriam v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 748 P.2d 883 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 12ד10, § 505(A) parallel and are limited by the requirements and standards of K.S.A. 12-715. The district judge found that the Board’s decision to grant the variance was unreasonable because the regulations’ requirements of “uniqueness” and “unnecessary hardship” were not met and,…”
Hacker v. Sedgwick Cnty., 286 P.3d 222 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דThe district court upheld tire board’s order granting the variance. On appeal, this court considered whether there was substantial evidence supporting all five criteria necessary for the board to grant an area variance under K.”
Mouber v. City of Prairie Vill., 637 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2דThis action is authorized by K.S.A. 12-715 which in pertinent part reads: “Any person, official or governmental agency dissatisfied with any order or determination of said board [city board of zoning appeals] may bring an action in *973 the district court of the county in which…”
— K.S.A. § 12-715(a) — 2 cases
City of Merriam v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 748 P.2d 883 (Kan. 1988). “10, § 505(A) parallel and are limited by the requirements and standards of K.S.A. 12-715. The district judge found that the Board’s decision to grant the variance was unreasonable because the regulations’ requirements of “uniqueness” and “unnecessary hardship” were not met and,…”
Hacker v. Sedgwick Cnty., 286 P.3d 222 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “The district court upheld tire board’s order granting the variance. On appeal, this court considered whether there was substantial evidence supporting all five criteria necessary for the board to grant an area variance under K.”
— K.S.A. § 12-715(a)(3) — 1 case
Hacker v. Sedgwick Cnty., 286 P.3d 222 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “The district court upheld tire board’s order granting the variance. On appeal, this court considered whether there was substantial evidence supporting all five criteria necessary for the board to grant an area variance under K.”
— K.S.A. § 12-715(b) — 1 case
City of Merriam v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 748 P.2d 883 (Kan. 1988). “10, § 505(A) parallel and are limited by the requirements and standards of K.S.A. 12-715. The district judge found that the Board’s decision to grant the variance was unreasonable because the regulations’ requirements of “uniqueness” and “unnecessary hardship” were not met and,…”
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.