12-712. History: L. 1921, ch. 100, § 7; R.S. 1923, § 13-1106; L. 1980, ch. 63, § 1; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Taxpayer has burden of establishing unreasonableness of regulation. West v. City of Wichita, 118 Kan. 265, 268, 234 P. 978. 2. Suit under this section, when dismissed, does not prevent subsequent application. State, ex rel., v. Wade, 128 Kan. 646, 652, 278 P. 1067. 3. Judgment hereunder not bar to application to repair burned building. State, ex rel., v. Wade, 128 Kan. 646, 652, 278 P. 1067. 4. Necessity of showing damage before ordinance declared unreasonable. Hoel v. Kansas City, 131 Kan. 290, 291, 291 P. 780. 5. Ordinance held reasonable. Simmonds v. Meyn, 134 Kan. 419, 422, 7 P.2d 506. 6. Denial of rezoning application held unreasonable and arbitrary. Barclay v. Mitchum, 186 Kan. 463, 464, 350 P.2d 1109. 7. Owners of frontage property located outside city where rezoning sought had right to bring action challenging rezoning amendment; duty to hear protesters. Koppel v. City of Fairway, 189 Kan. 710, 712, 714, 715, 716, 371 P.2d 113. 8. Mentioned; requiring platting and dedication of small tract for uniformity as prerequisite to rezoning upheld. Hudson Oil Co. v. City of Wichita, 193 Kan. 623, 628, 396 P.2d 271. 9. Burden of establishing unreasonableness upon plaintiff; trial procedure governed by civil code. Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371, 372, 376, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 424 P.2d 513. 10. Order refusing permit to build mobile home park unreasonable; K.S.A. 19-2926 applied. Scherrer v. Board of County Commissioners, 201 Kan. 424, 425, 441 P.2d 901. 11. Action challenging rezoning ordinance; evidence insufficient to establish arbitrary conduct. Waterstradt v. Board of Commissioners, 203 Kan. 317, 454 P.2d 445. 12. Record examined in action determining reasonableness of ordinance; admissible evidence; burden of proof. Keeney v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 389, 390, 454 P.2d 456. 13. Rezoning ordinance held unreasonable in action brought hereunder. Coughlin v. City of Topeka, 206 Kan. 552, 553, 480 P.2d 91. 14. Cited; on appeal from decision of administrative agency or tribunal, district court cannot hear the matter de novo and substitute its judgment for that of the agency or tribunal, except for questions of law or essential judicial matters. Neeley v. Board of Trustees, Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System, 205 Kan. 780, 783, 473 P.2d 72. 15. Trial court may not substitute judgment for that of governing body unless clearly compelled to do so by evidence; reasonableness of rezoning ordinance upheld. Paul v. City of Manhattan, 212 Kan. 381, 383, 511 P.2d 244. 16. City's refusal to rezone upheld; no showing of unreasonableness. Hukle v. City of Kansas City, 212 Kan. 627, 628, 629, 637, 512 P.2d 457. 17. Action hereunder contesting refusal of city to issue special permit for mobile home park. Gaslight Villa, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 213 Kan. 862, 864, 865, 867, 869, 873, 518 P.2d 410. 18. Reasonableness of annexation not reviewable under this section. Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., 214 Kan. 408, 412, 413, 520 P.2d 1230. 19. Ordinance adopted reasonable; valid exercise of police power and properly adopted. Houston v. Board of City Commissioners, 218 Kan. 323, 324, 543 P.2d 1010. 20. Suit challenging council's non-decisive vote on rezoning as arbitrary and unreasonable dismissed. Olson v. City of WaKeeney, 218 Kan. 447, 448, 543 P.2d 932. 21. Action not brought pursuant to section; judgment granting injunction and ordering removal of structure affirmed. City of DeSoto v. Centurion Homes, Inc., 1 Kan. App. 2d 634, 639, 573 P.2d 628. 22. Applied in upholding trial court's judgment that denial of rezoning was unreasonable. Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 599, 584 P.2d 130. 23. Determination that city's function in acting on requested zoning change of a tract more quasi-judicial than legislative questioned (dissenting opinion). Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 601, 602, 584 P.2d 130. 24. City's refusal to rezone unreasonable; judgment ordering rezoning affirmed. Security National Bank v. City of Olathe, 225 Kan. 220, 231, 589 P.2d 589. 25. Review hereunder not applicable to propriety of refusing to approve platting of property. Ventures in Property I v. City of Wichita, 225 Kan. 698, 703, 713, 594 P.2d 671. 26. Mentioned in action determining reasonableness of board of county commissioner's decision in rezoning matter. Combined Investment Co. v. Board of Butler County Comm'rs, 227 Kan. 17, 28, 605 P.2d 533. 27. Similarity of this section to K.S.A. 19-2913 noted in holding action commenced under K.S.A. 19-2913 governed by time limit for filing appeals under K.S.A. 60-511, not K.S.A. 19-223 or 60-2101(d). Bolser v. Zoning Board of Aubry Township, 4 Kan. App. 2d 288, 290, 605 P.2d 156. 28. Discussed relative to time limits for appeals from zoning decisions. Bolser v. Zoning Board for Aubry Township, 228 Kan. 6, 12, 612 P.2d 563. 29. Mere plotting and planning in anticipation of public improvement does not constitute a taking or damaging of property. Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Secretary, Dept. of Transp., 234 Kan. 121, 128, 671 P.2d 511 (1983). 30. Owner of option to buy has interest in property to challenge reasonableness of zoning change. Taco Bell v. City of Mission, 234 Kan. 879, 885, 678 P.2d 133 (1984). 31. Principles to be applied in reviewing decision by city in zoning or special permit case restated; injunctive relief considered. Daniels v. Board of Kansas City Comm'rs, 236 Kan. 578, 585, 693 P.2d 1170 (1985). 32. Provides only remedy for review of zoning ordinance; no jurisdiction to hear collateral attack under K.S.A. 60-1701. St. John v. City of Salina, 9 Kan. App. 2d 636, 639, 684 P.2d 464 (1984). 33. Term "regulation" includes actions on special use permits and provides procedure for obtaining appellate review. Sprint Print, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 238 Kan. 230, 235, 708 P.2d 210 (1985). 34. Factors suggested to aid governing body on reasonableness of zoning actions also applicable to special use permits, where relevant. K-S Center Co. v. City of Kansas City, 238 Kan. 482, 495, 712 P.2d 1186 (1986). 35. Cited; rights between property owner and owner of 92-year leasehold interest examined. Bonanza, Inc. v. McLean, 242 Kan. 209, 216, 747 P.2d 792 (1987). 36. Cited; nature of variance permitted in K.S.A. 12-715 and city ordinance, nature of height variance examined. City of Merriam v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 242 Kan. 532, 535, 748 P.2d 883 (1988). 37. Statute appropriate vehicle to challenge reasonableness of city ordinance rezoning property. Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 243 Kan. 522, 528, 529, 759 P.2d 113 (1988). 38. Reasonableness as the standard for review in considering factors regarding rezoning considered. Landau v. City Council of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 257, 263, 767 P.2d 1290 (1989). 39. No action for damages allowed where denial of rezoning request found to be unreasonable. Jack v. City of Olathe, 245 Kan. 458, 467, 781 P.2d 1069 (1989). 40. Adequacy of record to enable trial court to make a reasonable determination hereunder examined. Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 247 Kan. 486, 802 P.2d 494 (1990). 41. Application for rezoning denied; not denial of procedural due process; shielded by state action immunity doctrine. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111 (1991). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026