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

K.S.A. § 12-757 (2026)

Same; zoning; downzoning or rezoning, amendments and revisions; procedure; notice and hearing; protest petition; signs to notify of proposed rezoning

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

12-757. Same; zoning; downzoning or rezoning, amendments and revisions; procedure; notice and hearing; protest petition; signs to notify of proposed rezoning. (a) The governing body, from time to time, may supplement, change or generally revise the boundaries or regulations contained in zoning regulations by amendment. A proposal for such amendment may be initiated by the governing body or the planning commission. If such proposed amendment is not a general revision of the existing regulations and affects specific property, the amendment may be initiated by application of the owner of property affected. Any such amendment, if in accordance with the land use plan or the land use element of a comprehensive plan, shall be presumed to be reasonable. The governing body shall establish in its zoning regulations the matters to be considered when approving or disapproving a rezoning request. The governing body may establish reasonable fees to be paid in advance by the owner of any property at the time of making application for a zoning amendment.

(b) All such proposed amendments first shall be submitted to the planning commission for recommendation. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing thereon, shall cause an accurate written summary to be made of the proceedings, and shall give notice in like manner as that required for recommendations on the original proposed zoning regulations provided in K.S.A. 12-756, and amendments thereto. Such notice shall fix the time and place for such hearing and contain a statement regarding the proposed changes in regulations or restrictions or in the boundary or classification of any zone or district. If such proposed amendment is not a general revision of the existing regulations and affects specific property, the property shall be designated by legal description or a general description sufficient to identify the property under consideration. In addition to such publication notice, written notice of such proposed amendment shall be mailed at least 20 days before the hearing to all owners of record of real property within the area to be altered and to all owners of record of real property located within at least 200 feet of the area proposed to be altered for regulations of a city and to all owners of record of real property located within at least 1,000 feet of the area proposed to be altered for regulations of a county. If a city proposes a zoning amendment to property located adjacent to or outside the city's limits, the area of notification of the city's action shall be extended to at least 1,000 feet in the unincorporated area. Notice of a county's action shall extend 200 feet in those areas where the notification area extends within the corporate limits of a city. All notices shall include a statement that a complete legal description is available for public inspection and shall indicate where such information is available. When the notice has been properly addressed and deposited in the mail, failure of a party to receive such notice shall not invalidate any subsequent action taken by the planning commission or the governing body. Such notice is sufficient to permit the planning commission to recommend amendments to zoning regulations which affect only a portion of the land described in the notice or which give all or any part of the land described a zoning classification of lesser change than that set forth in the notice. A recommendation of a zoning classification of lesser change than that set forth in the notice shall not be valid without republication and, where necessary, remailing, unless the planning commission has previously established a table or publication available to the public which designates what zoning classifications are lesser changes authorized within the published zoning classifications. At any public hearing held to consider a proposed rezoning, an opportunity shall be granted to interested parties to be heard.

(c) (1) Whenever five or more property owners of record owning 10 or more contiguous or noncontiguous lots, tracts or parcels of the same zoning classification initiate a rezoning of their property from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zoning classification, such amendment shall require notice by publication and hearing in like manner as required in subsection (b) of this section. Such zoning amendment shall not require written notice and shall not be subject to the protest petition provision of subsection (f) of this section.

(2) Whenever a city or county initiates a rezoning from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zoning classification of 10 or more contiguous or noncontiguous lots, tracts or parcels of the same zoning classification having five or more owners of record, such amendment shall require notice by publication and hearing in like manner as that required by subsection (b) of this section. In addition, written notice shall be required to be mailed to only owners of record of the properties to be rezoned and only such owners shall be eligible to initiate a protest petition under subsection (f) of this section.

(d) Except as provided in subsection (g) and unless otherwise provided by this act, the procedure for the consideration and adoption of any such proposed amendment shall be in the same manner as that required for the consideration and adoption of the original zoning regulations. A majority of the members of the planning commission present and voting at the hearing shall be required to recommend approval or denial of the amendment to the governing body. If the planning commission fails to make a recommendation on a rezoning request, the planning commission shall be deemed to have made a recommendation of disapproval. When the planning commission submits a recommendation of approval or disapproval of such amendment and the reasons therefor, the governing body may: (1) Adopt such recommendation by ordinance in a city or by resolution in a county; (2) override the planning commission's recommendation by a ⅔ majority vote of the membership of the governing body; or (3) return such recommendation to the planning commission with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve or disapprove. If the governing body returns the planning commission's recommendation, the planning commission, after considering the same, may resubmit its original recommendation giving the reasons therefor or submit new and amended recommendation. Upon the receipt of such recommendation, the governing body, by a simple majority thereof, may adopt or may revise or amend and adopt such recommendation by the respective ordinance or resolution, or it need take no further action thereon. If the planning commission fails to deliver its recommendation to the governing body following the planning commission's next regular meeting after receipt of the governing body's report, the governing body shall consider such course of inaction on the part of the planning commission as a resubmission of the original recommendation and proceed accordingly. The proposed rezoning shall become effective upon publication of the respective adopting ordinance or resolution.

(e) If such amendment affects the boundaries of any zone or district, the respective ordinance or resolution shall describe the boundaries as amended, or if provision is made for the fixing of the same upon an official map which has been incorporated by reference, the amending ordinance or resolution shall define the change or the boundary as amended, shall order the official map to be changed to reflect such amendment, shall amend the section of the ordinance or resolution incorporating the same and shall reincorporate such map as amended.

(f) (1) Except as provided in subsection (g), whether or not the planning commission approves or disapproves a zoning amendment, if a protest petition against such amendment is filed in the office of the city clerk or the county clerk within 14 days after the date of the conclusion of the public hearing pursuant to the publication notice, signed by the owners of record of 20% or more of any real property proposed to be rezoned or by the owners of record of 20% or more of the total real property within the area required to be notified by this act of the proposed rezoning of a specific property, excluding streets and public ways and property excluded pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the ordinance or resolution adopting such amendment shall not be passed except by at least a ¾ vote of all of the members of the governing body.

(2) For the purpose of determining the sufficiency of a protest petition, if the proposed rezoning was requested by the owner of the specific property subject to the rezoning or the owner of the specific property subject to the rezoning does not oppose in writing such rezoning, such property also shall be excluded when calculating the "total real property within the area required to be notified" as that phrase is used in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(g) An ordinance or resolution adopting a zoning amendment for mining operations subject to K.S.A. 49-601 et seq., and amendments thereto, regardless of a protest petition or failure to recommend by the planning commission shall only require a majority vote of all members of the governing body.

(h) Zoning regulations may provide additional notice by providing for the posting of signs on land which is the subject of a proposed rezoning, for the purpose of providing notice of such proposed rezoning.

History: L. 1991, ch. 56, § 17; L. 1995, ch. 211, § 1; L. 1995, ch. 249, § 1; L. 2000, ch. 75, § 1; L. 2009, ch. 79, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 218 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 218 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 11× “, that it did not violate the procedures outlined in K.S.A. 12-757? No. *930 2. Did the district court err in determining that the Board’s decision amending the zoning regulations was reasonable? No.”
Manly v. City of Shawnee, 194 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 12× “While the Houston case was decided prior to the current version of K.S.A. 12-757, it remains good law with respect to the basic allocation of governing power.”
Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc., 69 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 6× “The central issue on appeal is whether the City had the authority to change land use via an annexation agreement and to bypass the provisions of K.S.A. 12-757, as adopted by the City in its zoning regulations.”
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 547 P.3d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 38× “State zoning statutes do not prohibit zoning authorities from treating applications for multi-family residential planned unit developments as zoning amendments governed by K.S.A. 12-757. 3. Zoning authorities are not prohibited from applying the protest provisions of K.”
Genesis Health Club, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 181 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2008). “Among other things, some landowners did not receive proper notice of the proposed action as required by K.S.A. 12-757[b]. The City only sent notices to those owning property within 200 feet of the annexed land, not 1,000 feet.”
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, 564 P.3d 1262 (Kan. 2025). · cites it 39× “The district court did not consider K.S.A. 12-757 but instead assessed whether the City properly complied with SMC § 17.”
143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 259 P.3d 644 (Kan. 2011). “12-752 (procedures for “approval” of platting and replatting); K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 12-757(d) (procedures for amending zoning regulation; using term “approval”); K.”
Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 264 P.3d 989 (Kan. 2011). “These were Count I (state preemption); Count II (failure to follow proper procedures under K.S.A. 12-757[d] in adopting Resolution 04-18); Count IV (violation of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution); Count V (violation of the Commerce Clause of the United…”
Johnson Cnty. Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 871 P.2d 1256 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 12-757(c). The petition was returned, and the Planning Commission again recommended approval.”
Ternes v. Bd. of Sumner Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 27× “Although the statute does not explicitly mention conditional use permits, Kansas courts have consistently found that the procedures in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 12-757 apply to conditional use and special use permits.”
Am. Warrior, Inc. v. Bd. of Finney Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. 2024). · cites it 24× “They claimed the local procedure for issuing the permit violated state law, citing K.S.A. 12-757 (procedures for amending zoning regulations).”
Pretty Prairie Wind v. Reno Cnty. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 23× “Pretty Prairie asserts—and the district court found—that protest petitions must comply with Kansas statutes governing election petitions, K.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 12-757(a) — 4 cases
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 547 P.3d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “State zoning statutes do not prohibit zoning authorities from treating applications for multi-family residential planned unit developments as zoning amendments governed by K.S.A. 12-757. 3. Zoning authorities are not prohibited from applying the protest provisions of K.”
Zesiger (D. Kan. 2026).
Am. Warrior, Inc. v. Bd. of Finney Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. 2024). “They claimed the local procedure for issuing the permit violated state law, citing K.S.A. 12-757 (procedures for amending zoning regulations).”
City of Prairie Vill. v. PV United (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 12-757(b) — 6 cases
Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc., 69 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2003). “The central issue on appeal is whether the City had the authority to change land use via an annexation agreement and to bypass the provisions of K.S.A. 12-757, as adopted by the City in its zoning regulations.”
Manly v. City of Shawnee, 194 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008). “While the Houston case was decided prior to the current version of K.S.A. 12-757, it remains good law with respect to the basic allocation of governing power.”
Ternes v. Bd. of Sumner Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “Although the statute does not explicitly mention conditional use permits, Kansas courts have consistently found that the procedures in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 12-757 apply to conditional use and special use permits.”
Lambert v. City of Leawood (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
Vickers v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 444 P.3d 380 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 12-757(c) — 2 cases
Johnson Cnty. Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 871 P.2d 1256 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 12-757(c). The petition was returned, and the Planning Commission again recommended approval.”
City of Prairie Vill. v. PV United (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 12-757(c)(2) — 2 cases
Lambert v. City of Leawood (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
City of Prairie Vill. v. PV United (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 12-757(d) — 10 cases
Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 218 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2009). “, that it did not violate the procedures outlined in K.S.A. 12-757? No. *930 2. Did the district court err in determining that the Board’s decision amending the zoning regulations was reasonable? No.”
Manly v. City of Shawnee, 194 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008). “While the Houston case was decided prior to the current version of K.S.A. 12-757, it remains good law with respect to the basic allocation of governing power.”
Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc., 69 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2003). “The central issue on appeal is whether the City had the authority to change land use via an annexation agreement and to bypass the provisions of K.S.A. 12-757, as adopted by the City in its zoning regulations.”
143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 259 P.3d 644 (Kan. 2011). “12-752 (procedures for “approval” of platting and replatting); K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 12-757(d) (procedures for amending zoning regulation; using term “approval”); K.”
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 547 P.3d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “State zoning statutes do not prohibit zoning authorities from treating applications for multi-family residential planned unit developments as zoning amendments governed by K.S.A. 12-757. 3. Zoning authorities are not prohibited from applying the protest provisions of K.”
— K.S.A. § 12-757(f) — 6 cases
Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc., 69 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2003). “The central issue on appeal is whether the City had the authority to change land use via an annexation agreement and to bypass the provisions of K.S.A. 12-757, as adopted by the City in its zoning regulations.”
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 547 P.3d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “State zoning statutes do not prohibit zoning authorities from treating applications for multi-family residential planned unit developments as zoning amendments governed by K.S.A. 12-757. 3. Zoning authorities are not prohibited from applying the protest provisions of K.”
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, 564 P.3d 1262 (Kan. 2025). “The district court did not consider K.S.A. 12-757 but instead assessed whether the City properly complied with SMC § 17.”
Prairiewood Holdings v. Bd. of Riley Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. 2026).
Vickers v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 444 P.3d 380 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 12-757(f)(1) — 3 cases
Austin Props. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 547 P.3d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “State zoning statutes do not prohibit zoning authorities from treating applications for multi-family residential planned unit developments as zoning amendments governed by K.S.A. 12-757. 3. Zoning authorities are not prohibited from applying the protest provisions of K.”
Pretty Prairie Wind v. Reno Cnty. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Pretty Prairie asserts—and the district court found—that protest petitions must comply with Kansas statutes governing election petitions, K.”
Prairiewood Holdings v. Bd. of Riley Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 12-757(f)(l) — 1 case
Manly v. City of Shawnee, 194 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008). “While the Houston case was decided prior to the current version of K.S.A. 12-757, it remains good law with respect to the basic allocation of governing power.”
— K.S.A. § 12-757(g) — 1 case
Am. Warrior, Inc. v. Bd. of Finney Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. 2024). “They claimed the local procedure for issuing the permit violated state law, citing K.S.A. 12-757 (procedures for amending zoning regulations).”
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.