Appeals to the board may be taken by any person, or entity claiming to be injuriously
affected or aggrieved by an official action, order, requirement, interpretation, grant,
refusal, or decision of any zoning enforcement officer. Such appeal shall be taken within
thirty (30) days after the appellant or his agent receives notice of the action of the official
by filing with said officer and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds
thereof, and giving notice of such appeal to any and all parties of record. Said officer shall
forthwith transmit to the board all papers constituting the record upon which the action
appealed from was taken and shall be treated as and be the respondent in such further
proceedings. At the public hearing on the appeal held by the board, any interested person
may appear and enter his appearance, and all shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
Effective: July 15, 1986
History: Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 30, effective July 15, 1986. -- Created
1966 Ky. Acts ch. 172, sec. 58.
Notes of Decisions
Allen v. Woodford Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments, 228 S.W.3d 573 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Additionally and more to the point, Appellees argue in response that Appellants did not timely appeal the adoption of this definition before the Board of Adjustments pursuant to KRS 100.261. This statute provides: Appeals to the board may be taken by any person, or entity…”
Godman v. City of Fort Wright, 234 S.W.3d 362 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2 of its Zoning Ordinance and on KRS 100.261, both of which require that any person claiming to be injuriously affected or aggrieved by an action of the Zoning Administrator must file an appeal to the Board of Adjustment within thirty calendar days after the appellant or his…”
Taylor v. Duke, 896 S.W.2d 618 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “A second relevant statute, KRS 100.261, provides for an administrative appeal to the board of adjustment from the granting of a building permit by a zoning enforcement officer within thirty days after he acts.”
Burns v. Peavler, 721 S.W.2d 715 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “KRS 100.261. If the appeal to the board of adjustment was unsuccessful, the statutes provided a further appeal to circuit court from final actions of the board.”
Harrison v. Park Hills Bd. of Adjustment, 330 S.W.3d 89 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“As a result of the zoning administrator’s decision, the Spoors filed a timely application with the Board of Adjustment to appeal the decision pursuant to KRS 100.261. That application was assigned case number 08070003.”
Duffy v. City of Stanton, Kentucky, 423 F. Supp. 2d 683 (E.D. Ky. 2006).
· cites it 2× “KRS § 100.261. Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff never appealed the towing to the Board.”
Rosary Catholic Par. of Paducah v. Whitfield, 729 S.W.2d 27 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “However, no where does the record reflect that he protested before the Paducah Board of Adjustment as provided by KRS 100.261. 4 Had he so protested, he would then have been empowered to take a further appeal to the McCracken Circuit Court in accordance with KRS 100.”
Owensboro Metro. Bd. of Adjustments v. Midwest Outdoor Advert., Inc., 729 S.W.2d 446 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“Notwithstanding the fact that appellants initially brought this action, they argue that appellees were precluded from chai- *448 lenging the findings of the zoning administrator since there was no appeal to the Owensboro Board of Adjustment pursuant to KRS 100.261 and OMZO §…”
Jeffrey Scott v. Jessamine Cnty.-City of Wilmore Jt. Bd. of Adjustment (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 6× “Pepperhill responds that the issue is neither properly before us, nor was it properly before the Circuit Court, as it was not timely challenged pursuant to KRS 100.261. Additionally, Pepperhill claims there is no substantive error, as the BOA is entitled to interpret its own…”
Waste Servs. of the Bluegrass, LLC v. Scott Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Ky. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Under the first prong, Waste Services argue the Kane Letter exceeded statutory authority under KRS 100.261 because neither Kane nor any other injured party appealed the Smith certificate of compliance letter within 30 days, rendering the Kane Letter void.”
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.