Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 100
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.285 (2026)

Revocation of subdivision plat

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

(1) Upon application of all persons owning land comprising a subdivision, the planning commission may revoke the approval of a subdivision plat, including all dedications of public facilities, easements and rights-of-way.

(2) Before any plat shall be revoked, all owners shall, as part of their application for revocation, state under oath that no person has purchased a lot shown on the plat.

(3) A revocation shall become effective only upon:

(a) A notation on the margin of the recorded plat stating that such plat has been revoked and the date of such vote of revocation; such notation shall be signed by the chairman, secretary, or other duly authorized officer of the commission; and

(b) A written approval of such revocation filed with the commission, duly signed by each entity to which an offer of dedication of any public or private facility, easement or right-of-way was made on the plat.

(4) The remedy provided in this section is in addition to all other remedies provided by law and shall not impair the right of the commission or any interested party from filing an action in Circuit Court for such relief as may be appropriate. Effective: July 15, 1986 History: Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 38, effective July 15, 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Sebastian-Voor Props., LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 265 S.W.3d 190 (Ky. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sebastian-Voor Props., LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 265 S.W.3d 190 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 2× “See KRS 100.285(3)(b).... Henry Fischer Builder, Inc.”
Henry Fischer Builder, Inc. v. Magee, 957 S.W.2d 303 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). “See KRS 100.285(3)(b). In hindsight, the planning commission’s decision to approve a final plat or section 10-A, without requiring the rest of Sierra Drive to be included, may not have been the wisest decision.”
South Elkhorn Vill., LLC v. City of Georgetown, et al. (E.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 15× “) SEV maintains that exclusive authority to revoke or amend an approved plat rests with the Planning Commission and that the delayed withholding of its Availability Request permitted under § 2.”
Jayne Kissling Tannenbaum Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Fred Kissling, Jr. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't Div. of Plan. Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “090, KRS 100.285, and KRS 382.440, and we will examine the Estate’s claims under each statute.”
South Elkhorn Vill. v. Georgetown (E.D. Ky. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 1983 ; a violation of KRS § 100.285; and (5) negligence. (Id.) Both GMWSS Defendants and the City responded with respective motions to dismiss on various grounds.”
Dwayne Douglas Conken v. Nicholas Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). “Subsequently, the Court finds the revocation of the July 2022 plat a “remedy provided by law” in accordance with KRS 100.285(4). With no previous plat remaining in force, the Court finds the Fiscal Court’s approval of DGS’s plat in September 2023 to be valid.”
Dwayne Douglas Conken v. Nicholas Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). “Subsequently, the Court finds the revocation of the July 2022 plat a “remedy provided by law” in accordance with KRS 100.285(4). With no previous plat remaining in force, the Court finds the Fiscal Court’s approval of DGS’s plat in September 2023 to be valid.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.285(3)(b) — 2 cases
Sebastian-Voor Props., LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 265 S.W.3d 190 (Ky. 2008). “See KRS 100.285(3)(b).... Henry Fischer Builder, Inc.”
Henry Fischer Builder, Inc. v. Magee, 957 S.W.2d 303 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). “See KRS 100.285(3)(b). In hindsight, the planning commission’s decision to approve a final plat or section 10-A, without requiring the rest of Sierra Drive to be included, may not have been the wisest decision.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.285(4) — 3 cases
Jayne Kissling Tannenbaum Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Fred Kissling, Jr. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't Div. of Plan. Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). “090, KRS 100.285, and KRS 382.440, and we will examine the Estate’s claims under each statute.”
Dwayne Douglas Conken v. Nicholas Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). “Subsequently, the Court finds the revocation of the July 2022 plat a “remedy provided by law” in accordance with KRS 100.285(4). With no previous plat remaining in force, the Court finds the Fiscal Court’s approval of DGS’s plat in September 2023 to be valid.”
Dwayne Douglas Conken v. Nicholas Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). “Subsequently, the Court finds the revocation of the July 2022 plat a “remedy provided by law” in accordance with KRS 100.285(4). With no previous plat remaining in force, the Court finds the Fiscal Court’s approval of DGS’s plat in September 2023 to be valid.”
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.