Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v. County of Boone

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed a zoning dispute involving Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc.'s application to mine underground limestone in Boone County. The court held that general policy opinions by members of a legislative zoning body did not, without allegations of malice, fraud, corruption, or conflicts of interest, violate procedural due process or require an impartial tribunal. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of whether the Fiscal Court's decision was supported by substantial evidence and complied with applicable zoning law and the comprehensive plan.

Holdings

1. Procedural due process in a legislative or administrative zoning proceeding does not include a broad judicial-style right to an impartial tribunal. A decisionmaker's general policy views or public position on a related issue do not, without more, establish a due process violation.
2. Procedural due process requires affected parties to receive an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, including the opportunity for a hearing, consideration of offered evidence, factual findings based on the evidence, an order supported by substantial evidence, and judicial review when constitutional rights are implicated.
3. General policy opposition to subsurface mining does not make a legislative zoning decision arbitrary absent malice, fraud, corruption, conflict of interest, blatant favoritism, or other evidence that the decision was not honestly and substantially supported by the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Boone County Fiscal Court's zoning decision violated Hilltop's procedural due process rights because two members had expressed general opposition to subsurface mining before the hearing.
2. Whether procedural due process in a legislative or administrative zoning proceeding includes a broad right to decisionmakers who are impartial in the same manner as judicial tribunals.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by failing to consider whether the Fiscal Court's decision was supported by substantial evidence and conformed to the comprehensive plan and applicable zoning law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded