Request By:
Honorable William D. Probus
City Attorney
City of Cynthiana
201 Elks Building
Cynthiana, Kentucky 41031
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of September 24 in which you raise the following additional questions to those raised in OAG 79-450, to wit:
"1. Under the provisions of KRS 100.117(1), if the City of Berry should withdraw from the Cynthiana-Berry Planning and Zoning Commission, thus dissolving the joint planning unit, must the City of Cynthiana also follow the interrogation procedures outlined in this statute before it engages in an independent planning operation, or is only the withdrawing unit required to follow such procedures before planning independently?
"2. If both cities must interrogate, may Cynthiana and Berry announce their intention to dissolve the joint unit at such time in the future as would give both cities an opportunity to interrogate while still functioning as a joint unit as to property within their respective boundaries, or may the interrogation process only begin upon the actual dissolution of the joint unit?
"3. Once the City of Cynthiana has again legally established an independent planning unit and elected under KRS 100.131 to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of subdivision regulations in an area five (5) miles from all points upon its boundary, would this extra-territorial jurisdiction be limited solely to the adoption and enforcement of regulations covering those matters delineated in KRS 100.281, or would such jurisdiction also allow the adoption and enforcement of other regulations pertaining to building within said subdivisions such as building permits and inspection fees?"
Our response to your initial question would be in the negative as the city of Cynthiana would not be considered a withdrawing planning unit required to follow the interrogation procedures initially required in order to plan independently. On the other hand the city of Berry would have to follow such procedure, otherwise it could not plan independently. In this respect we are enclosing OAG 78-658.
In view of our response to your initial question, your second question becomes moot.
Our response to your third question would be in the affirmative, which means that we believe the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction would be limited to the enactment and enforcement of subdivision regulations adopted pursuant to the terms of KRS 100.281 which does not include zoning. This means, of course, that the city would have no zoning power outside of the corporate limits unless the county authorized same under the terms of KRS 100.131.
The city does have the power to adopt building regulations and specifications under its general zoning power as provided in KRS 100.210, et al and KRS 100.217 authorizing a zoning administrator (building inspector) with power to issue building permits. We refer you to OAG 77-449, copy enclosed.