City of Salina v. Jaggers

612 P.2d 618, 228 Kan. 155, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 311
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJune 14, 1980
Docket51,351
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 612 P.2d 618 (City of Salina v. Jaggers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Salina v. Jaggers, 612 P.2d 618, 228 Kan. 155, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 311 (kan 1980).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Herd, J.:

This action was brought by the City of Salina against Helen Jaggers, Saline County Register of Deeds; Dauer Implement Co., a Kansas corporation; The Saline County Planning & Zoning Commission; The Saline County Board of County Commissioners; John F. Commerford; Thomas J. Commerford; James *156 J. Commerford; George E. Commerford; and Valle H. Commerford. This appeal represents two cases consolidated at trial and presents the following question: What governmental bodies must approve the designation of a plat in an unincorporated area located more than one mile but less than three miles from the nearest limits of an incorporated city, prior to the recording of the plat with the register of deeds?

The facts are undisputed and are unimportant to the disposition of this case. We will, however, include them as background information. Appellees, John F. Commerford, James J. Commerford, Thomas J. Commerford, George E. Commerford and Valle H. Commerford, are the fee owners of the East 60 acres of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 15 South, Range 3 West, in Saline County. The tract of land was platted as the “Commerford Final Plat” and is known as the “Commerford Tract.” The tract lays within 3 miles of but more than 1 mile from the nearest points of the City of Salina and is not more than one half the distance from Salina and any other city.

On July 7, 1978, the City of Salina served written notice on Helen Jaggers, as Register of Deeds, directing her to refrain from recording the “Commerford Final Plat” until it was approved by the City Planning Commission and the Board of City Commissioners of Salina. The Register of Deeds did not heed the City’s notice and filed and recorded the controversial plat on July 11, 1978. Thereafter on October 5, 1978, the County Planning & Zoning Commission issued a building permit to Dauer Implement Co., Inc., to erect a building upon lot one of “Commerford Tract”.

On October 24,1978, the City of Salina filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against all appellees, except Helen Jaggers, who had been previously sued on July 24, 1978, in an action seeking identical relief. The two cases were consolidated in an order dated March 26, 1979. The City had previously dismissed its action against Dauer Implement Co., Inc. on November 28, 1978. At that time it was agreed the dismissal would not affect the positions of the parties in either case.

On May 11, 1979, the case was tried to the court. The City had filed a motion for summary judgment and that motion was overruled June 8, 1979. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was sustained *157 and judgment was entered in their favor. This appeal followed. The parties stipulated one issue to be decided at trial: “[W]hether or not K.S.A. 19-2633 and K.S.A. 19-2905 were repealed by implication when the legislature enacted K.S.A. 12-705a and 12-705b in 1965.” The resolution of that issue will shed light on the statutory procedure to be followed with respect to subdivision regulation within the three-mile unincorporated area surrounding the City of Salina, particularly as it applies to platting.

At the outset, we will examine whether there is a distinction between zoning and subdivision and platting statutes affecting the issue in this case. With respect to counties it appears the legislature intended to divide the statutes into separate zoning and platting statutes. K.S.A. 19-2633 and K.S.A. 19-2905 are illustrative of this point. As originally enacted, K.S.A. 19-2633 was described as: “Relating to the subdividing and platting of land outside of the corporate limits of cities.” (Emphasis added.) It specified the land in question be more than one mile from the limits of any incorporated city.

K.S.A. 19-2905 was passed in 1939 some ten years after K.S.A. 19-2633 and was entitled:

“Authorizing zoning in certain townships of certain counties near cities of more than 100,000 population.
“An Act authorizing zoning in certain townships of certain counties for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare; to provide for the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes; to divide such townships into districts or zones of such number, shape, and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out the purposes of this act; to regulate and restrict the construction, reconstruction, alternation or use of buildings, structures or land therein; to provide for the appointment of a zoning board; to provide for the adoption of comprehensive zoning plans; to regulate and control plats and to provide for a comprehensive road and trafficway system; to provide for the change of such regulations and boundaries of zones; to provide the method of procedure and other purposes, and to provide for the method of raising funds therefor, and prescribing penalties for the violation thereof.” L. 1939 ch. 165.

Although the titles of the two acts accurately describe their contents as platting on the one hand and zoning on the other, the original act of which K.S.A. 19-2905 was a part contains a reference to regulation and control of plats. It is apparent the legislature considered county platting a part of county zoning and commingled the regulations of the two.

The same phenomenon occurs in the city statutes. As originally *158 enacted in 1921, K.S.A. 12-705 specifically referred to plats, replats, deeds or dedications of land. That statute is not located in city planning and subdivision regulation. It could be argued the statutes are divided into subdivisions under the general heading of planning and zoning in article 7. Throughout the planning and zoning statutes, however, the legislature has referred to the comprehensive plan which includes maps, plats and charts for the development of the city. Even if the statutes could be distinguished either as subdivision regulations or zoning regulations, both are controlled by the “comprehensive plan” provided for by K.S.A. 12-704. K.S.A.

Related

City of Topeka v. Board of County Commissioners
89 P.3d 924 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2004)
State v. Roderick
911 P.2d 159 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1996)
In re the Marriage of Harris
883 P.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1994)
Hainline v. Bond
824 P.2d 959 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1992)
State v. Sexton
657 P.2d 43 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1983)
Webb v. Pomeroy
655 P.2d 465 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1982)
State v. Smith
654 P.2d 929 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1982)
Buettner v. Unruh
642 P.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1982)
BOSWELL, D/B/A RENO COUNTY ADULT CARE HOME v. Harkins
640 P.2d 1202 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1982)
Gross v. VanLerberg
646 P.2d 471 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1981)
Sutton v. State
636 P.2d 187 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1981)
State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Lane
614 P.2d 987 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1980)
In Re the Estate of Suesz
613 P.2d 947 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1980)
Hoffman v. Hoffman
613 P.2d 1356 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
612 P.2d 618, 228 Kan. 155, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-salina-v-jaggers-kan-1980.