About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



2024 Op. Kan. Att'y Gen. 1 (2024)

handle is hein.sag/sagks0096 and id is 1 raw text is: 






                                   STATE   OF KANSAS
                         OFFICE   OF THE  ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRIs  W. KOBACH                                                             MEMORIAL HALL
    ATTORNEY GENERAL                                                    120 SW 10TH AVE.. 2ND FLOOR
                                                                         TOPEKA. KS 66612-1597
                                                                     (785) 296-2215 • FAX (785) 296-6296
                                                                            WWW.AG.KS.GOV
                                     January 11, 2024


      ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2024-1

      The Honorable Ken  Corbet
      State Representative, 54th District
      State Capitol, Room 179-N
      Topeka, Kansas 66612

      Re:         Cities and Municipalities-Planning and Zoning-Planning, Zoning
                  and Subdivision Regulations in Cities and Counties-Same;
                  Subdivision Regulations; Adoption and Amendment

      Synopsis:   Although the Kansas Legislature may legally permit a city to impose
                  its land subdivision requirements on county residents within three
                  miles of city limits, it should be cautious when granting cities
                  extraterritorial authority. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-749.



      As the Representative of the 54th District, you inquire about the constitutionality of
      K.S.A. 12-749, which generally authorizes a city planning commission to enforce
      land subdivision regulations against properties within three miles of city limits. You
      question whether a city may lawfully impose these regulations on individuals who
      cannot elect the city's leaders.

      The legality of a similar law was tested in Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa,1
      where residents of an unincorporated community challenged a city's authority to
      enforce their police and sanitary regulations on those situated within three miles of
      city limits.2 The United States Supreme Court rejected the residents' claim that the
      law violated the one person, one vote mandate of the Equal Protection Clause by


1 439 U.S. 60 (1978).
2Id. at 61-62.