GREENWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. CITY OF FRANKFORT; DEWEY DAVID HUFF; AND KENNETH THOMPSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
October 8, 2004; 2:00 p.m.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2003-CA-001169-MR
GREENWAY ENTERPRISES, INC.
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE WILLIAM L. GRAHAM, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 00-CI-00612
CITY OF FRANKFORT;
DEWEY DAVID HUFF; AND
KENNETH THOMPSON
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BARBER, SCHRODER, AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
Greenway Enterprises, Inc. appeals a summary
judgment dismissing their damage claim for delays in providing
sewer hookups for its development.
We opine that the planning
and zoning approval of a preliminary development plan does not
create a contract obligating the city to a timetable for the
extension of sewer lines to the development, and that in order
for city employees to be liable for ministerial duties, there
has to be a duty owed to the injured party.
Hence, we affirm.
The undeveloped property in question was zoned
“Planned Residential” by the Frankfort City Commission.
Before
the property could be developed, the zoning ordinance required
submission to and approval of a development plan by the
Frankfort Planning and Zoning Commission.
A development plan has two stages.
The “preliminary
development plan” outlines and conceptually addresses the future
development concerns like number of units, access and general
location of roads, availability and general location of
electric, water, sewer, waste, etc.
Once the developer obtains
preliminary development plan approval, it can address the
details, such as exact location of lot lines, utilities, roads,
the location of public improvements, etc., which is submitted to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval as a “final
development plan.”
The preliminary plan should locate the
external boundary lines for the whole development, generally
give the number of units, generally their location, the source
for utilities, and provide the general layout of the
development.
Included are reviews and approvals by the
utilities, like the sewer department, that mean, if built, they
can service the area.
The final development plan can be
-2-
presented in stages or phases and developed over a period of
time instead of all at once.
When a final development plan is
presented in phases, it generally follows the preliminary
development plan and provides the details of the actual internal
boundaries, dimensions, and locations, etc., of all the public
improvements.
This case involves a preliminary development plan of
“The Links at Duckers Lake” which was reviewed by the sewer
department and approved for 634 residential units.
The final
development plan was presented in phases and developed with four
phases approved and developed according to the final development
plan.
When phase five was presented for sewer review of 120 (of
the 634) units, there was a problem.
The sewer department
responded that sewer service was not currently available for
phase five due to problems outside the development.
Final
development plan approval was delayed until the City fixed its
collection system.
Eventually, the problems were fixed and the
development tapped into the City’s sewer system.
Greenway Enterprises, Inc. (“Greenway”) purchased
phase five after the preliminary development plan was approved.
Only when it submitted the final development plan for review did
it become aware of the problems with the city sewer system and
the moratorium on new hookups until the problems were addressed.
The delays were costly and Greenway sued the City, Dewey David
-3-
Huff, the Director of the Frankfort Sewer Department, and
Kenneth Thompson, City Manager, in both their official and
individual capacities.
Greenway asked the trial court to award
it compensatory and punitive damages for diminution of the fair
market value of the property, lost profits, increased
development costs due to the delay, and gross negligence.
The trial court held that KRS 65.2003 protected the
City and City Manager Thompson in his official capacity against
liability for the refusal to issue, or the revoking of, any
permit, as this would be a discretionary act and the statute
created immunity absent bad faith.
City Manager Thompson and
Sewer Director Huff were found to be exercising discretionary
functions, in good faith and within the scope of their
employment.
The Court held that under Yanero v. Davis, Ky., 65
S.W.3d 510 (2001), they both were protected in their individual
capacities from any liability for discretionary acts.
The trial
court then granted summary judgment, and Greenway appeals to our
Court.
On appeal, Greenway contends the trial court erred in
finding the City immune from liability because the City was
performing a proprietary function rather than a governmental
function and that the trial court erred in finding the City
Manager and Sewer Director were exempt from liability because
they were “acting outside the scope of their authority.”
-4-
This
case presents a good example of a lack of understanding of the
planning and zoning statutes and the City’s obligations
thereunder.
Greenway’s complaint contains aspects of both tort
and contract violations.
For an understanding of our opinion,
it is important to review the different public steps involved in
developing a project like this.
The City of Frankfort is authorized by KRS 100.201 to
adopt zoning and land use regulations, provided it creates a
planning commission and adopts a comprehensive plan.
The City
zoned the property “Planned Residential” as authorized by its
duly enacted zoning ordinance.
KRS 100.203(2) allows a zoning
ordinance to require submission to and approval by the planning
commission of a development plan which is defined by KRS
100.111(8) as:
“Development plan” means written and graphic
material for the provision of a development,
including any or all of the following:
location and bulk of buildings and other
structures, intensity of use, density of
development, streets, ways, parking
facilities, signs, drainage of surface
water, access points, a plan for screening
or buffering, utilities, existing manmade
and natural conditions, and all other
conditions agreed to by the applicant[.]
The “Amended Development Plan, The Links at Duckers
Lake,” approved in March of 1998, showed the four existing
phases as approved with subdivision plats recorded, which would
allow housing permits to be obtained.
-5-
The development plan
shows phase five as “Future Development I, 120 Single Family
Lots.”
There is not sufficient detail on the amended
development plan to constitute a final development plan.
Even
if considered a final development plan, or approved development
plan, the developer still needs a recordable plat.
KRS 100.281
authorizes subdivision regulations to contain a procedure for
the submission and approval of preliminary, as well as final
plats.
A preliminary plat is a working document, a tentative
plan, which the developer submits to the planning commission for
review and acceptance.
The planning commission either accepts
it or places conditions or changes on the proposal, including
conditions included in the final development plan.
When both
parties agree on all the specifications, reservations,
conditions, etc., then there exists a blueprint for a final
plat.
If the subdivision (streets, utilities, etc.) is built
according to the blueprint, or a performance bond is posted, a
final plat, the finished product, will be approved and recorded.
KRS 100.281(1) provides for the recording of final plats only,
and for a good reason.
Only when the plat becomes final are the
parties’ rights and expectations fixed.
Until a plat becomes
final, it cannot be recorded, lots cannot be sold, and building
permits cannot be issued.
KRS 100.277.
Until a plat becomes
final by having received final plat approval by the planning
commission, the public improvements cannot be accepted by the
-6-
legislative body for maintenance.
KRS 100.277(4); see also
Kelly v. Cook, Ky. App., 899 S.W.2d 517 (1995).
In this case, Greenway seeks damages for the delay
which was caused by the City and its employees’ failure to allow
phase five to tap into the City’s sewer system due to the City’s
poor maintenance of the collector system.
While it is true that
the sewer plant had the capacity to handle phase five, the
infiltration of ground water into the collector system
overloaded the plant’s capacity during rain, etc.
The City made
a decision to not allow new hookups until the system was
repaired sufficiently to handle the infiltration problem.
developer of phase five was not yet a customer.
The
The decision of
when or if to extend the sewer lines or to allow additional tapins is a legislative decision.
In City of Frankfort v. Byrns,
Ky. App., 817 S.W.2d 462 (1991), a panel of this Court reviewed
Frankfort’s decision to extend its storm water system, the
negligent design and building of the storm water system, and the
damage to residents in the areas served by the system.
We
decided that the City’s decision to service an area with a storm
water drainage system was a discretionary legislative act.
However, the design, building, and maintenance of said system
was ministerial.
Id. at 464.
with a distinguishing fact.
Greenway’s case is similar but
The City did not extend or give
final approval to the extension of service to phase five.
-7-
Greenway was temporarily denied service.
Until the hookup was
approved, the City was exercising a legislative or discretionary
function and has no liability.
KRS 65.2003(3).
Greenway’s
contention that it had final development plan approval which
gave it the right to sewer hookups is also in error.
Because
the City decided to delay or not approve the sewer hookups to
service phase five, the Planning Commission could not approve
the final development plan and the subdivision plats.
The
holdup was caused by the City, not the Planning Commission.
Under KRS 65.2003(3)(c), the denial, suspension, approval,
delayed approval, etc., does not subject the City to any
liability, even if some ministerial aspects are involved in the
decision.
Therefore the circuit court was correct in dismissing
the City of Frankfort from either contract liability or tort
liability.
Likewise, the City Manager and Sewer Director in their
official capacities, cannot be held liable for advising the City
to deny hookups until the current system is repaired.
In Yanero
v. Davis, Ky., 65 S.W.3d 510 (2001), our Supreme Court
recognized official immunity from tort liability for public
employees for acts performed in the exercise of their
discretionary functions, when sued in their official capacities.
Id. at 521-522.
Therefore, the trial court was also correct in
-8-
dismissing the City Manager and Sewer Director in their official
capacities.
Greenway has also sued the City Manager and Sewer
Director individually, on the theory of negligence in the
performance of their ministerial duties.
The problem with this
claim is that there is no duty owed to Greenway.
The City
exercised its discretionary powers to postpone service to phase
five.
Until the City approves service, the employees are not
performing ministerial duties within the phase five area.
The
infiltration of the collector lines involves the maintenance and
repair of a system outside of phase five.
The duty to provide
adequate service, maintenance, etc. is to the existing service
area (customers), not future customers.
Without a duty, there
is no liability.
In City of Florence, Kentucky v. Chipman, Ky., 38
S.W.3d 387 (2001), our Supreme Court discussed discretionary
duties and ministerial duties of a city employee (police
officer) and recognized that in order for a claim to be
actionable, there has to be a duty owed to the injured party.
A
duty to the public at large or to the citizens of the city does
not create a duty to an injured party.
Likewise, in our case,
the City, the City Manager, and Sewer Director all have a duty
to get the sewer system repaired, but the duty is not owed to
Greenway as a future customer, but rather to existing customers.
-9-
See Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522.
Again, the trial court’s ruling
was correct albeit on other grounds.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
Damon B. Willis
Joseph C. Souza
Louisville, Kentucky
Kevin G. Henry
Andrew DeSimone
Lexington, Kentucky
-10-
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.