Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.187 (2026)

Contents of comprehensive plan

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The comprehensive plan shall contain, as a minimum, the following elements: (1) A statement of goals and objectives, which shall serve as a guide for the physical development and economic and social well-being of the planning unit; (2) A land use plan element, which shall show proposals for the most appropriate, economic, desirable, and feasible patterns for the general location, character, extent, and interrelationship of the manner in which the community should use its public and private land at specified times as far into the future as is reasonable to foresee. Such land uses may cover, without being limited to, public and private, residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and recreational land uses; (3) A transportation plan element, which shall show proposals for the most desirable, appropriate, economic, and feasible pattern for the general location, character, and extent of the channels, routes, and terminals for transportation facilities for the circulation of persons and goods for specified times as far into the future as is reasonable to foresee. The channels, routes, and terminals may include, without being limited to, all classes of highways or streets, railways, airways, waterways; routings for mass transit trucks, etc.; and terminals for people, goods, or vehicles related to highways, airways, waterways, and railways; (4) A community facilities plan element which shall show proposals for the most desirable, appropriate, economic, and feasible pattern for the general location, character, and the extent of public and semipublic buildings, land, and facilities for specified times as far into the future as is reasonable to foresee. The facilities may include, without being limited to, parks and recreation, schools and other educational or cultural facilities, libraries, churches, hospitals, social welfare and medical facilities, utilities, fire stations, police stations, jails, or other public office or administrative facilities; (5) (a) Provisions for the accommodation of all military installations greater than or equal in area to three hundred (300) acres that are: 1. Contained wholly or partially within the planning unit's boundaries; 2. Abutting the planning unit's boundaries; or 3. Contained within or abutting any county that contains a planning unit. (b) The goal of providing for the accommodation of these military installations shall be to minimize conflicts between the relevant military installations and the planning unit's residential population. These provisions shall be made after consultation with the relevant installation's command authorities to determine the needs of the relevant military installation. These consultations shall include but not be limited to questions of installation expansion, environmental impact, issues of installation safety, and issues relating to air space usage, to include noise pollution, air pollution, and air safety concerns; and (6) The comprehensive plan may include any additional elements such as, without being limited to, community renewal, housing, flood control, pollution, conservation, natural resources, regional impact, historic preservation, and other programs which in the judgment of the planning commission will further serve the purposes of the comprehensive plan. Effective: June 24, 2003 History: Amended 2003 Ky. Acts ch. 167, sec. 10, effective June 24, 2003. -- Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 362, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990. -- Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 11, effective July 15, 1986. -- Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 172, sec. 25.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: City of Lakeside Park v. Quinn, 672 S.W.2d 666 (Ky. 1984).
City of Lakeside Park v. Quinn, 672 S.W.2d 666 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 7× “KRS 100.187 delineates the minimally required contents of a comprehensive plan which includes “A statement of goals and objective principles .”
Warren Cnty. Citizens v. Bd. of Commissioners, 207 S.W.3d 7 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “26 If the focal point plan were viewed in isolation, we might be inclined to agree with WCCMG that Warren County’s comprehensive plan does not meet the requirements of KRS 100.187. The focal point system identifies areas by predominant land-use characteristics, but does not…”
Hardin Cnty. v. Jost, 897 S.W.2d 592 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “KRS 100.187 provides that “The comprehensive plan shall contain, as a minimum, the following elements: .”
Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Plan. Comm'n v. Schmidt, 83 S.W.3d 449 (Ky. 2001). · cites it 2× “KRS 100.187. *450 The Legislature has granted Jefferson County Fiscal Court the power to enact zoning regulations, KRS 100.”
Creative Displays, Inc. v. City of Florence, 602 S.W.2d 682 (Ky. 1980). · cites it 2× “KRS 100.187. It is not argued that the comprehensive plan adopted by the Commission did not contain these elements.”
Baesler v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 237 S.W.3d 209 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “KRS 100.187(2). The Commission is also required to draft a “statement of goals and objectives” to serve as a guide for implementing the elements of the comprehensive plan.”
Fritz v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 986 S.W.2d 456 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “KRS 100.187. By nature, a comprehensive plan speaks to future development even though it takes into consideration the current land uses.”
McKinstry v. Wells, 548 S.W.2d 169 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “Under KRS 100.187(2), a comprehensive plan must contain a land use plan element.”
Hines v. Pinchback-Halloran Volkswagen, Inc., 513 S.W.2d 492 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “" KRS 100.187(2). A comprehensive plan cannot be adopted by the Planning Commission without compliance with the research requirements of KRS 100.”
Daviess Cnty. v. Snyder, 556 S.W.2d 688 (Ky. 1977). “KRS 100.187 sets forth five essential elements of the comprehensive plan.”
Bellefonte Land, Inc. v. Bellefonte, 864 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993). “113, KRS 100.187(3), and KRS 100.201). Turning to the motion to dismiss, we must ask whether the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.”
Hume v. Franklin Cnty. Fiscal Court, 276 S.W.3d 748 (Ky. 2009). · cites it 3× “KRS 100.187. One element of the comprehensive or master plan is a land use plan which is basically a map of the community with all the existing land uses, and a map which shows proposed land uses for the most appropriate, economic, desirable, and feasible patterns for the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.187(2) — 5 cases
Baesler v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 237 S.W.3d 209 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “KRS 100.187(2). The Commission is also required to draft a “statement of goals and objectives” to serve as a guide for implementing the elements of the comprehensive plan.”
McKinstry v. Wells, 548 S.W.2d 169 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “Under KRS 100.187(2), a comprehensive plan must contain a land use plan element.”
Hines v. Pinchback-Halloran Volkswagen, Inc., 513 S.W.2d 492 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). “" KRS 100.187(2). A comprehensive plan cannot be adopted by the Planning Commission without compliance with the research requirements of KRS 100.”
Hardin Cnty. v. Jost, 897 S.W.2d 592 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). “KRS 100.187 provides that “The comprehensive plan shall contain, as a minimum, the following elements: .”
Hume v. Franklin Cnty. Fiscal Court, 276 S.W.3d 748 (Ky. 2009). “KRS 100.187. One element of the comprehensive or master plan is a land use plan which is basically a map of the community with all the existing land uses, and a map which shows proposed land uses for the most appropriate, economic, desirable, and feasible patterns for the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.187(3) — 1 case
Bellefonte Land, Inc. v. Bellefonte, 864 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993). “113, KRS 100.187(3), and KRS 100.201). Turning to the motion to dismiss, we must ask whether the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.187(4) — 1 case
Hall v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 660 S.W.2d 674 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).
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.