Background
J.A.R. 25 Development applied in January 2023 for a land-use amendment to change 31.95 acres on Lexington Road in Richmond, Kentucky from UC-1 (single-family residential) to PUD UC-11 (planned unit development). The application included proposed findings that the change aligned with the county’s comprehensive plan and Northern Madison County Development Plan, and that the property had adequate access, water, and sewer service.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application in February 2023. At a March 2023 Fiscal Court meeting, neighbors’ counsel raised concerns that statutory notice requirements had not been satisfied—specifically, that certified-mail notices to affected property owners had not been sent 14 days in advance, and the property sign did not meet font-size specifications. The neighbors requested the Fiscal Court return the matter to the Planning Commission for proper re-notice and a second hearing, which the court granted.
The Planning Commission held a second hearing in May 2023, with audio recorded, and again unanimously recommended approval. The Fiscal Court approved the ordinance in June 2023 after a second reading. The neighbors appealed, challenging the Planning Commission’s February recommendation and the Fiscal Court’s June adoption on grounds that statutory findings and procedures had not been followed.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed both the Planning Commission and Fiscal Court decisions. On the recording issue, the court held that KRS 100.167 requires planning commissions to “keep minutes and records” but does not mandate audio or video recordings. Though electronic recordings are ideal, technological failures are not necessarily fatal when the record is otherwise adequate. Here, the Planning Commission created a substantial record through video recording and detailed written minutes summarizing evidence, arguments, witness testimony, and the commission’s findings that the change met comprehensive plan requirements.
The court rejected neighbors’ arguments that the Fiscal Court lacked authority to remand the application. Because the proposal was not “administratively complete”—lacking statutorily required certified-mail notice and compliant property signage—the Fiscal Court properly determined the application needed correction before final action could be taken. Kentucky courts have recognized that fiscal courts and city councils have inherent authority to refer matters back to planning commissions for further consideration. The court also found that neighbors, having requested the remand themselves, could not benefit from any error in the remand process under the invited-error doctrine.
Finally, the court held that the February Planning Commission recommendation did not become final when the Fiscal Court failed to act within 90 days, because the application was administratively incomplete. The applicable 90-day period began with the May recommendation (after proper procedures were corrected), which was within the 90-day window when the Fiscal Court approved the ordinance in June. The June ordinance properly incorporated and adopted the Planning Commission’s findings of fact and included detailed findings on access, utilities, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and land-use diversity.
Key Takeaways
- Planning commissions need not record audio if the record is otherwise adequate—detailed minutes plus video recording satisfied statutory record-keeping requirements where audio failed due to a power surge.
- Fiscal courts have inherent authority to remand zoning applications to planning commissions to cure procedural deficiencies, including failure to send certified-mail notice and post compliant property signage.
- Parties cannot benefit from procedural errors they themselves invited; neighbors who requested the remand were estopped from arguing the remand was improper.
- The 90-day decision deadline under KRS 100.211(2) resets when an application is remanded for administrative completion and a new hearing is held.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that planning commissions operate under more flexible standards than courts regarding findings and record-keeping. A failure to maintain perfect audio or video does not void proceedings if the written record and minutes are detailed enough for meaningful appellate review. The ruling also confirms that local governments can take corrective measures to cure procedural defects before taking final action on zoning changes, protecting the integrity of notice requirements and affected parties’ opportunity to be heard.
For developers and neighbors alike, the decision illustrates the risks and limits of procedural objections. While neighbors successfully demanded a remand to cure notice deficiencies, their request reset the timeline and gave them another chance to object—yet they ultimately lost when the Planning Commission and Fiscal Court again approved the change after following proper procedures. The decision underscores that invited-error doctrine can foreclose appellate relief even when a party was correct about the underlying procedural problem.