VALLEY VIEW FARM I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS. THE CITY OF SHEPHERDSVILLE, KENTUCKY , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MARCH 19, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-000213-MR
VALLEY VIEW FARM I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
HERITAGE HILL PROPERTIES, LLC; AND
HERITAGE HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN P. RYAN, SPECIAL JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-00376
THE CITY OF SHEPHERDSVILLE, KENTUCKY;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHEPHERDSVILLE; JOE SOHM, MAYOR, OR HIS
SUCCESSOR; MARY T. HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
MARY ANN MILLER, REVOCABLE TRUST;
SARA NELL MCDADE, REVOCABLE TRUST;
JAMES C. HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
CHARLES L. HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
JAMES C. HAMILTON; LORA L. HAMILTON; AND
BULLITT COUNTY JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION
AND
NO. 2008-CA-000381-MR
MARY T. HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
MARY ANN MILLER, REVOCABLE TRUST;
SARAH NELL MCDADE, REVOCABLE TRUST;
APPELLEES
JAMES C. HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
CHARLES L. HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
JAMES C. HAMILTON AND LAURA HAMILTON
v.
CROSS-APPELLANTS
CROSS APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN P. RYAN, SPECIAL JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-00376
VALLEY VIEW FARM I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
HERITAGE HILL PROPERTIES, LLC; HERITAGE
HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.;
THE CITY OF SHEPHERDSVILLE, KENTUCKY;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHEPHERDSVILLE, KENTUCKY; JOE SOHM,
MAYOR OR HIS SUCCESSOR; AND BULLITT
COUNTY JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION
CROSS-APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, TAYLOR AND THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, JUDGE: This is a zoning case wherein the Bullitt Circuit Court
rejected the appellants’ claims that the City of Shepherdsville acted arbitrarily
when it failed to conform the written land use restrictions to the restrictions voted
upon by the Shepherdsville City Council and agreed upon by the landowners
seeking the zoning map amendment. We agree with the Bullitt Circuit Court and
affirm.
2
The appellants, Valley View Farm I, Limited Partnership, and
Heritage Hill Properties, LLC, developed an 840-acre farm known as Heritage Hill
into a residential community located in Bullitt County. The Heritage Hill
Community Association, Inc. represents the current and future homeowners in the
community who are referred to collectively as Heritage Hill. The appellees,
referred to as the Hamiltons, include adjoining landowners who, in 2005, applied
to the Bullitt County Planning Commission for a zoning map amendment to have a
portion of their property rezoned from agricultural to light industrial. Although
Heritage Hill did not completely oppose the amendment, it sought restrictions
concerning building heights, the location of HVAC units, and truck loading docks.
The planning commission held a public hearing following which it
recommended that the property be rezoned with restrictions. However, contrary to
Heritage Hill’s request, there were no restrictions regarding the location of loading
docks on the Hamiltons’ property in the planning commission’s recommendation
before the Shepherdsville City Council.
On February 13, 2006, Heritage Hill and the Hamiltons appeared at
the second reading of an ordinance to approve the commission’s recommendation
and grant the request for a zoning map amendment. The parties differ regarding
the content of the discussion at the hearing before the council. However, both
were given the opportunity to present their case. Heritage Hill requested
restrictions to preserve the character of the adjoining property. Although the
council agreed to approve the zoning map amendment, it was subject to restrictions
3
to be subsequently submitted in writing. The minutes from the February 13th
hearing became the subject of debate when offered for approval at the city
council’s next scheduled meeting held on February 27, 2006.
Heritage Hill contended that at the February 13th hearing, the
Hamiltons agreed to place the loading docks only on the west side of the buildings
adjacent to Heritage Hill and that the approval of the zoning amendment was based
upon the Hamilton’s agreement. Ultimately, the minutes were approved and
included the following restriction: “loading docks, parking lots, and dumpsters
must be located on the opposite side of the building from residential areas.”
Subsequently, Heritage Hill requested and obtained a copy of the
zoning restrictions dated March 23, 2006, that stated “loading docks or parking lots
will not be located on the East side of any buildings erected adjacent to the East
property line of the Property and the West property line of Heritage Hill.”
Heritage Hill alleged the restriction that permitted loading docks on the north,
south and west sides of the Hamiltons’ property was inconsistent with the council’s
prior decision on February 13th to permit loading docks only on the west side of
the property. Unable to rectify its dispute with the City of Shepherdsville, Heritage
Hill filed an action in the Bullitt Circuit Court alleging that the zoning restrictions
did not conform to the actions taken at the February 13th council meeting as
reflected in the council’s minutes. Heritage Hill later amended its complaint to
allege claims pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statues (KRS) 100.347.
4
Upon the Hamiltons’ motion, the circuit court remanded the case to
the city council to decide whether the minutes and the zoning restrictions correctly
expressed the council’s intentions and, if not, to adopt minutes and restrictions
consistent with its intent. On remand, the council voted that the February 13th
minutes and the written zoning restrictions were consistent with its intentions.
Subsequently, Heritage Hill filed a motion to amend its first amended
complaint to include the additional allegation that the minutes again approved by
the city council were inconsistent with the restrictions and that the decision of the
city council on remand was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by the record.
The circuit court denied the motion to amend the first amended
complaint to assert additional claims that the city council’s February minutes were
inconsistent with the restrictions. It emphasized that the first amended complaint
alleged only that the minutes and the signed restrictions were not consistent with
the council’s actions and made no alternative allegation that if the minutes were
accurate, the minutes were not consistent with the signed restrictions. The court
held that the allegations made in the second amended complaint were known to
Heritage Hill at the time the first amended complaint was filed and, therefore, were
required to be included in that complaint. Because on remand the city council
decided that the minutes of the February 13th meeting and the restrictions dated
March 23, 2006, accurately reflected its intentions, the circuit court dismissed
Heritage Hill’s claims that the minutes and restrictions did not accurately reflect
the action of the city council on February 13, 2006. Finality of its order was
5
reserved pending resolution of Heritage Hill’s remaining claims arising under KRS
100.347, alleging that the city’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported
by the record.
After the submission of briefs and review of the administrative record,
the circuit court rejected Heritage Hill’s statutory appeal. In doing so, it reaffirmed
its prior ruling that the city council decided on remand that the restrictions
reflected its intent. It further found that the allegations made by Heritage Hill were
insufficient to sustain an appeal of the city council’s action pursuant to KRS
100.347.
Although Heritage Hill now contends that the minutes and the
restrictions are inconsistent, this is the same allegation sought to be presented in
the second amended complaint that was denied by the circuit court. “Though CR
15.01 provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, it
is still discretionary with the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed unless it
is clearly an abuse.” Graves v. Winer, 351 S.W.2d 193, 197 (Ky. 1961)(internal
quotations omitted). Because the allegations presented in Heritage Hill’s second
amended complaint could have been presented in its first amended complaint, we
conclude there was not abuse of discretion by the circuit court when it denied its
motion to file a second amended complaint. We now address Heritage Hill’s
allegations in its complaint and first amended complaint.
Typically, the issues in a zoning case are whether the action of the
body was arbitrary on the basis of what evidence was heard and what proceedings
6
took place before the body. A trial de novo cannot be held in the court and the
action will be considered arbitrary only if “(1) the proceedings before the body did
not afford procedural due process, or (2) the action of the body was not supported
by substantial evidence heard by it.” Morris v. City of Catlettsburg, 437 S.W.2d
753, 755 (Ky. 1969). However, Heritage Hill does not challenge the amendment
of the zoning map based on substantial evidence grounds. Rather, throughout the
litigation, Heritage Hill has maintained only that the City Council’s actions were
not accurately reflected in the restrictions imposed on the property. Presented with
Heritage Hill’s request that the court determine the City Council’s intent when
voting on the zoning map amendment, the Court properly remanded the matter to
the city council which again voted that the minutes from the February 13th meeting
and the restrictions dated March 23, 2006, accurately reflected the intentions of the
city council. Thus, all issues regarding the accuracy of the February 13th minutes
and the zoning restrictions were resolved and Heritage Hill’s claims were properly
dismissed.
Because we affirm the Bullitt Circuit Court, we do not address the
issue raised in the Hamiltons’ cross-appeal.
The judgment of the Bullitt Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
7
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT/CROSSAPPELLEE, VALLEY VIEW FARM
I, LIMITED:
Lee Remington Williams
Eric G. Farris
Shepherdsville, Kentucky
BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES/CROSSAPPELLANTS, MARY T.
HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
MARY ANN MILLER,
REVOCABLE TRUST; SARAH
NELL MCDADE, REVOCABLE
TRUST; JAMES C. HAMILTON,
LIVING TRUST; CHARLES L.
HAMILTON, LIVING TRUST;
JAMES C. HAMILTON AND
LAURA HAMILTON:
David A. Pike
F. Keith Brown
Shepherdsville, Kentucky
Richard M. Sullivan
Louisville, Kentucky
8
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
