Dr. Elizabeth L. Rogers v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment

RENDERED: JUNE 20, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0631-MR DR. ELIZABETH L. ROGERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE LUCY A. VANMETER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 24-CI-00996 LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ITS MEMBERS, BOB J. STURDIVANT; CAROLYN J. PLUMLEE; CHAD T. WALKER; LINDA TUCKER; P. BRANDEN GROSS; RAQUEL E. CARTER; AND W. HARRY CLARKE, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES. CETRULO, JUDGE: Dr. Elizabeth Rogers (“Rogers”) appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court dismissing her complaint/appeal regarding a zoning decision made by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment (the “Board”). After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court’s order. BACKGROUND The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute. Rogers owns the subject property with her husband, Kenneth Rogers (“Kenneth”), in Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky. In January 2024, Rogers applied for a conditional use permit to operate an unhosted short-term rental at the subject property. On February 12, 2024, the Board denied Rogers’s application. Subsequently, Rogers filed a complaint/appeal against the Board pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 100.347, in the Fayette County Circuit Court. On March 26, 2024, the Board moved to dismiss the complaint/ appeal due to Rogers’s failure to make Kenneth a party pursuant to KRS 100.347(4), which resulted in a failure to timely perfect the statutory appeal and deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. The circuit court agreed with the Board and entered an order dismissing Rogers’s complaint/appeal. Rogers appealed to this Court. ANALYSIS “The question of jurisdiction is ordinarily one of law, meaning that the standard of review to be applied is de novo.” Harrison v. Park Hills Bd. of Adjustment, 330 S.W.3d 89, 93 (Ky. App. 2011) (quoting Appalachian Reg’l -2- Healthcare, Inc. v. Coleman, 239 S.W.3d 49, 53-54 (Ky. 2007)) (emphasis added). Kentucky courts “acknowledge the authority of the General Assembly to prescribe by statute the procedures for seeking and securing judicial review of an administrative ruling. Out of deference to that authority, we require strict compliance with the statutory procedures.” Isaacs v. Caldwell, 530 S.W.3d 449, 453 (Ky. 2017) (citing Triad Dev./Alta Glyne, Inc. v. Gellhaus, 150 S.W.3d 43, 47 (Ky. 2004)). “The right to appeal the decision of an administrative agency to a court is a matter of legislative grace.” Kenton Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment v. Meitzen, 607 S.W.3d 586, 593 (Ky. 2020) (quoting Nickell v. Diversicare Mgmt. Servs., 336 S.W.3d 454, 456 (Ky. 2011)). “Consequently, the failure to follow the statutory guidelines for such an appeal is fatal.” Id. (quoting Gellhaus, 150 S.W.3d at 47) (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, statutory interpretation “is a matter of law” that we review de novo. Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10, 19 (Ky. App. 2008) (citing Commonwealth v. Garnett, 8 S.W.3d 573, 575-76 (Ky. App. 1999)). “[T]he plain meaning of the statutory language is presumed to be what the legislature intended, and if the meaning is plain, then the court cannot base its interpretation on any other method or source.” Maysey v. Express Servs., Inc., 620 S.W.3d 63, 71 (Ky. 2021) (quoting Univ. of Louisville v. Rothstein, 532 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Ky. 2017)) (internal quotation marks omitted). -3-  Rogers argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing her complaint/appeal because, while Kenneth is an owner of the subject property, KRS 100.347(4) only required an owner to “be made part[y] to the appeal.” Conversely, the Board argues that KRS 100.347(4) required Rogers to make Kenneth a party in the complaint, and her failure to strictly comply with this provision deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. We agree with the Board. Failure to “strictly comply with a statute in taking an administrative appeal” deprives a court of particular-case jurisdiction. Louisville Hist. League, Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 709 S.W.3d 213, 223-24 (Ky. 2025) (citations omitted).1 A party must perfect an appeal from a “final action of a board of adjustment” within 30 days. KRS