disposition, or change by commission.
(1) All other provisions of this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, public utilities
operating under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, except as
specified in KRS 100.987, or the Department of Vehicle Regulation or Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, any municipally owned electric system, and
common carriers by rail shall not be required to receive the approval of the planning
unit for the location or relocation of any of their service facilities. Service facilities
include all facilities of such utilities and common carriers by rail other than office
space, garage space, and warehouse space and include office space, garage space,
and warehouse space when such space is incidental to a service facility. The Public
Service Commission and the Department of Vehicle Regulation shall give notice to
the planning commission of any planning unit of any hearing which affects
locations or relocations of service facilities within that planning unit's jurisdiction.
(2) The nonservice facilities excluded in subsection (1) of this section must be in
accordance with the zoning regulations.
(3) Upon the request of the planning commission, the public utilities referred to in this
section shall provide the planning commission of the planning unit affected with
information concerning service facilities which have been located on and relocated
on private property.
(4) Any proposal for acquisition or disposition of land for public facilities, or changes
in the character, location, or extent of structures or land for public facilities,
excluding state and federal highways and public utilities and common carriers by
rail mentioned in this section, shall be referred to the commission to be reviewed in
light of its agreement with the comprehensive plan, and the commission shall,
within sixty (60) days from the date of its receipt, review the project and advise the
referring body whether the project is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If
it disapproves of the project, it shall state the reasons for disapproval in writing and
make suggestions for changes which will, in its opinion, better accomplish the
objectives of the comprehensive plan. No permit required for construction or
occupancy of such public facilities shall be issued until the expiration of the sixty
(60) day period or until the planning commission issues its report, whichever occurs
first.
Effective: April 23, 2002
History: Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 89, sec. 3, effective July 15, 2002; ch. 343, sec. 1,
effective April 23, 2002; and ch 346, sec. 151, effective July 15, 2002. -- Amended
1998 Ky. Acts ch. 231, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch.
383, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 144, sec. 7,
effective July 15, 1988. -- Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 304, sec. 1, effective July 13,
1984. -- Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 172, sec. 80.
Legislative Research Commission Note (4/23/2002). This section was amended by
2002 Ky. Acts ch. 89, sec. 3, ch. 343, sec. 1, and ch. 346, sec. 151. Chs. 89 and 343
are not in conflict and have been codified together. Chs. 343 and 346 appear to be in
conflict, and where a conflict exists, the substantive changes in ch. 343 have been
allowed to prevail over the revisory changes in ch. 346. Cf. KRS 7.123.
Notes of Decisions
City of Worthington Hills v. Worthington Fire Prot. Dist., 140 S.W.3d 584 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 14× “Once dedicated and placed into use, Halifax Drive could not be closed until the Commission had first reviewed a proposed closure in light of its agreement with Jefferson County’s “Comprehensive Plan” and acted within 60 days to make its recommendation to the appropriate…”
Oldham Cnty. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n v. Courier Commc'ns Corp., 722 S.W.2d 904 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 15× “That court, however, determined that the appellants have no jurisdiction to control the location of service facilities of a regulated public utility given the language of KRS 100.324. Looking to the language of that statute, the appellants now argue that they are not restricted…”
Hopkinsville-Christian Cnty. Plan. Comm'n v. Christian Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 903 S.W.2d 531 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 5× “The planning commission thereupon called the Christian County Board of Education’s (school board) attention to the requirement of KRS 100.324(4). The school board, however, indicated that it might voluntarily comply with a recommendation of the planning commission, but that by…”
Steve Wilson v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “While Wilson complains that recommendations might have been made to the Fiscal Court by the planning commission, and asserts that this review was required under KRS 100.324, nothing this Court could order would alter the reality of this situation.”
Hall v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 660 S.W.2d 674 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “110, together with KRS 100.324(4). We find no error, but we find further support for affirming the judgment of the trial court in reading each of the cited statutes.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.324(1) — 1 case
Oldham Cnty. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n v. Courier Commc'ns Corp., 722 S.W.2d 904 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“That court, however, determined that the appellants have no jurisdiction to control the location of service facilities of a regulated public utility given the language of KRS 100.324. Looking to the language of that statute, the appellants now argue that they are not restricted…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.324(4) — 4 cases
City of Worthington Hills v. Worthington Fire Prot. Dist., 140 S.W.3d 584 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004).
“Once dedicated and placed into use, Halifax Drive could not be closed until the Commission had first reviewed a proposed closure in light of its agreement with Jefferson County’s “Comprehensive Plan” and acted within 60 days to make its recommendation to the appropriate…”
Hopkinsville-Christian Cnty. Plan. Comm'n v. Christian Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 903 S.W.2d 531 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
“The planning commission thereupon called the Christian County Board of Education’s (school board) attention to the requirement of KRS 100.324(4). The school board, however, indicated that it might voluntarily comply with a recommendation of the planning commission, but that by…”
Steve Wilson v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“While Wilson complains that recommendations might have been made to the Fiscal Court by the planning commission, and asserts that this review was required under KRS 100.324, nothing this Court could order would alter the reality of this situation.”
Hall v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 660 S.W.2d 674 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).
“110, together with KRS 100.324(4). We find no error, but we find further support for affirming the judgment of the trial court in reading each of the cited statutes.”
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.