K.S.A. » Chapter 75
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 75-2724 (2026)

Historic preservation; development projects; threat to historic property, procedure for determining; factors; judicial review; penalty, failure to follow procedures; delegation to cities, counties or state board of regents or educational institutions

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

75-2724. Historic preservation; development projects; threat to historic property, procedure for determining; factors; judicial review; penalty, failure to follow procedures; delegation to cities, counties or state board of regents or educational institutions. (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state, or any instrumentality thereof, shall not undertake any project which will damage or destroy any historic property included in the national register of historic places or the state register of historic places until the state historic preservation officer has been given notice, as provided herein, and an opportunity to investigate and comment upon the proposed project. Notice to the state historic preservation officer shall be given by the state or any political subdivision of the state when the proposed project, or any portion thereof, directly involves an historic property. Notwithstanding the notice herein required, nothing in this section shall be interpreted as limiting the authority of the state historic preservation officer to investigate, comment and make the determinations otherwise permitted by this section on a project directly involving an historic property. The state historic preservation officer may solicit the advice and recommendations of the historic sites board of review with respect to such project and may direct that a public hearing or hearings be held thereon. Any public hearing or hearings held pursuant to this subsection or held pursuant to authority delegated by the state historical preservation officer under subsection (e) or (f) shall be held within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice by the state historical preservation officer from the state or any political subdivision of the state as provided herein. If the state historic preservation officer determines, with or without having been given notice of the proposed project, that the proposed project will damage or destroy any historic property included in the national register of historic places or the state register of historic places, the project shall not proceed until:

(1) The governor, in the case of a project of the state or an instrumentality thereof, or the governing body of the political subdivision, in the case of a project of a political subdivision or an instrumentality thereof, has made a determination, based on a consideration of all relevant factors, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such historic property resulting from such use; and

(2) five days' notice of such determination has been given, by certified mail, to the state historic preservation officer.

(b) Any person aggrieved by the determination of the governor pursuant to this section may seek review of such determination in accordance with the Kansas judicial review act. Any person aggrieved by the determination of a governing body pursuant to this section may seek review of such determination in accordance with K.S.A. 60-2101, and amendments thereto.

(c) The failure of the state historic preservation officer to initiate an investigation of any proposed project within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice thereof shall constitute such officer's approval of such project.

(d) Failure of any person or entity to apply for and obtain the proper or required building or demolition permit before undertaking a project that will damage or destroy any historic property included in the national register of historic places or the state register of historic places shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each violation. The attorney general may seek such penalties and other relief through actions filed in district court.

(e) (1) The state historic preservation officer may enter into an agreement authorizing a city or county to make recommendations or to perform any or all responsibilities of the state historic preservation officer under subsections (a), (b) and (c) if the state historic preservation officer determines that the city or county has enacted a comprehensive local historic preservation ordinance, established a local historic preservation board or commission and is actively engaged in a local historic preservation program. The agreement shall specify the authority delegated to the city or county by the state historic preservation officer, the manner in which the city or county shall report its decisions to the state historic preservation officer, the conditions under which the city or county can request assistance from the state historic preservation officer in performing certain project reviews, the length of time the agreement is to be valid and provisions for termination of the agreement. Such agreement shall provide that the state historic preservation officer shall retain final authority to implement the provisions of this act. The state historic preservation officer shall adopt any rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this subsection.

(2) An agreement with a city or county authorized by this subsection shall not be construed as limiting the authority of the state historic preservation officer to investigate, comment and make determinations otherwise permitted by this section.

(f) The state historic preservation officer may enter into agreements with the state board of regents or any state educational institution under the control and supervision of the state board of regents to perform any or all responsibilities of the state historic preservation officer under subsections (a), (b) and (c).

History: L. 1977, ch. 284, § 10; L. 1981, ch. 332, § 2; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 136; L. 1988, ch. 336, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 337, § 2; L. 1993, ch. 201, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 204, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 33, § 6; L. 2010, ch. 17, § 195; L. 2013, ch. 129, § 4; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 39× “” The next day, FOB appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 60-2101(d).”
Lawrence Pres. All., Inc. v. Allen Realty, Inc., 819 P.2d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 26× “Such a notice is required by K.S.A. 75-2724. Also, the City of Lawrence is a party to a Certified *95 Local Government Agreement, dated July 11, 1989, under which the City agrees, among other matters, to "maintain a qualified historic preservation commission" and to provide for…”
Mount St. Scholastica v. City of Atchison, Kansas, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 24× “In summary, it is the duty of the governing body under K.S.A. 75-2724 to examine all of the relevant factors and determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed action.”
Allen Realty, Inc. v. City of Lawrence, 790 P.2d 948 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 23× “K.S.A. 75-2724 provides the procedure for determining whether a proposed project threatens a historic property.”
Friends of the Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 222 P.3d 535 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 34× “Testimony at the Council Meeting • Pedro Irigonegaray Pedro Irigonegaray, counsel for FOB, reminded the Council of the requirements of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 75-2724. He testified that to approve the permit, the Council must find that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to…”
Reiter v. City of Beloit, 947 P.2d 425 (1997). · cites it 25× “The homeowner appeals from the trial court’s decision that the City complied with K.S.A. 75-2724 relating to preservation of historic property.”
City of Wichita v. Peterjohn, 522 P.3d 385 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 75-2724(e)(1); Wichita Municipal Code of Ordinances (W.”
Linsea v. Bd. of Chase Cnty. Comm'rs, 753 P.2d 1292 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “Four days later, the Board moved to vacate the order and dismiss Linsea’s action because the Board had complied with a statute requiring review by the state historical preservation officer (K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 75-2724), Linsea had no standing to pursue the action, and no statute…”
Bd. of Riley Cnty. Comm'rs v. Kansas Historical Soc'y (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “And even if the church were only listed on the National Register, the requirements in K.S.A. 75-2724 apply to historic properties listed there.”
Historic Pres. All., Inc. v. City of Wichita, 892 P.2d 518 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Under K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 75-2724(a), the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has the statutory authority to review and comment on the impact a project may have on any listed building and its environs.”
Homich v. Lake Cnty. Sch. Bd., 779 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). · cites it 2× “The court reasoned: Rather than adopt the definition of the phrase “no feasible and prudent alternative” as set out by the United States Supreme Court in Volpe , we hold that the words as they are used in K.S.A. 75-2724 are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(a) — 7 cases
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013). “” The next day, FOB appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 60-2101(d).”
Lawrence Pres. All., Inc. v. Allen Realty, Inc., 819 P.2d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “Such a notice is required by K.S.A. 75-2724. Also, the City of Lawrence is a party to a Certified *95 Local Government Agreement, dated July 11, 1989, under which the City agrees, among other matters, to "maintain a qualified historic preservation commission" and to provide for…”
Allen Realty, Inc. v. City of Lawrence, 790 P.2d 948 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “K.S.A. 75-2724 provides the procedure for determining whether a proposed project threatens a historic property.”
Friends of the Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 222 P.3d 535 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Testimony at the Council Meeting • Pedro Irigonegaray Pedro Irigonegaray, counsel for FOB, reminded the Council of the requirements of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 75-2724. He testified that to approve the permit, the Council must find that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to…”
Bd. of Riley Cnty. Comm'rs v. Kansas Historical Soc'y (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “And even if the church were only listed on the National Register, the requirements in K.S.A. 75-2724 apply to historic properties listed there.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(a)(1) — 3 cases
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013). “” The next day, FOB appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 60-2101(d).”
Friends of the Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 222 P.3d 535 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Testimony at the Council Meeting • Pedro Irigonegaray Pedro Irigonegaray, counsel for FOB, reminded the Council of the requirements of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 75-2724. He testified that to approve the permit, the Council must find that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to…”
Bd. of Riley Cnty. Comm'rs v. Kansas Historical Soc'y (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “And even if the church were only listed on the National Register, the requirements in K.S.A. 75-2724 apply to historic properties listed there.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(a)(l) — 2 cases
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013). “” The next day, FOB appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 60-2101(d).”
Friends of the Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 222 P.3d 535 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Testimony at the Council Meeting • Pedro Irigonegaray Pedro Irigonegaray, counsel for FOB, reminded the Council of the requirements of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 75-2724. He testified that to approve the permit, the Council must find that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to…”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(b) — 6 cases
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013). “” The next day, FOB appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 60-2101(d).”
Friends of the Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 222 P.3d 535 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Testimony at the Council Meeting • Pedro Irigonegaray Pedro Irigonegaray, counsel for FOB, reminded the Council of the requirements of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 75-2724. He testified that to approve the permit, the Council must find that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to…”
Lawrence Pres. All., Inc. v. Allen Realty, Inc., 819 P.2d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “Such a notice is required by K.S.A. 75-2724. Also, the City of Lawrence is a party to a Certified *95 Local Government Agreement, dated July 11, 1989, under which the City agrees, among other matters, to "maintain a qualified historic preservation commission" and to provide for…”
Allen Realty, Inc. v. City of Lawrence, 790 P.2d 948 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “K.S.A. 75-2724 provides the procedure for determining whether a proposed project threatens a historic property.”
Historic Pres. All., Inc. v. City of Wichita, 892 P.2d 518 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Under K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 75-2724(a), the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has the statutory authority to review and comment on the impact a project may have on any listed building and its environs.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(c) — 1 case
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 307 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2013). “” The next day, FOB appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-2724 and K.S.A. 60-2101(d).”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(d) — 1 case
Reiter v. City of Beloit, 947 P.2d 425 (1997). “The homeowner appeals from the trial court’s decision that the City complied with K.S.A. 75-2724 relating to preservation of historic property.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2724(e)(1) — 1 case
City of Wichita v. Peterjohn, 522 P.3d 385 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “K.S.A. 75-2724(e)(1); Wichita Municipal Code of Ordinances (W.”
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.