Request By:
Mr. William J. Kathman, Jr.
226 Main Street
P.O. Box 845
Florence, Kentucky 41042
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of January 29, in which you, as City Attorney for the City of Dry Ridge, refer to current zoning regulations and map which were adopted by ordinance in 1974 and which expressly repealed the old zoning regulations and map.
The 1974 ordinance apparently was a partial or general revision of the city's zoning regulations and map which has resulted in a number of individuals claiming that there were zoning changes concerning which they were not individually notified by registered mail, pursuant to KRS 100.212. You further relate that there was a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 1967 ordinance. Under the circumstances, you raise the following questions:
"Question I: Upon adoption of a new map and set of regulations, must a city follow the amendment procedures of KRS 100.211, .212 .213 or; is the city permitted to repeal the old zoning map and then adopt a new zoning map (with changes in zone classification for some parcels of property) without following amendment procedures?
Question II: If the answer to Question I is that a city must follow amendment procedures set forth in KRS 100.211, .212 and .213, then what is the effect on zoning such as Dry Ridge? Is your office of the opinion that the entire map would be void or only void as to those parcels changed without posting, notice or appropriate findings of fact?
Question III: Given the fact that we have confusion over what parcels have been changed by the 1974 map, what procedures should be followed in adopting a new map during 1982?"
In response to the above, and assuming that the 1974 ordinance constituted a partial or general revision of the zoning text and map, the provisions of KRS 100.211 and 100.213 requiring a trial-type hearing was apparently complied with. However, because the 1967 ordinance constituted a partial or general revision, individual notification of adjacent property owners required by KRS 100.212 would not, in our opinion, apply, and we have so held in a number of previous opinions, among them being OAG 72-446 and 78-74, copies attached. As pointed out in these opinions, the individual notice requirement of KRS 100.212 was, we believe, designed for the purpose of notifying adjacent property owners of a proposed individual zoning change made by the property owner, the legislative body or the planning commission. Where, however, there is a general zoning revision involved, we have concluded that a general publication of the notice of the hearing, pursuant to KRS Chapter 424 as required by KRS 100.211, would constitute sufficient notice. Thus, assuming there was a general publication notice of the hearing that took place prior to the adoption of the 1974 ordinance, the statutory publication and notification requirements were complied with. This response makes your second question moot.
The answer to your third question, concerning the procedure to be followed in adopting a new zoning map and regulations, would be the same as above indicated with respect to the adoption of the 1974 ordinance.