## Facts

- Janna Reiter owned the C.A. Perdue House, a home listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
- The City of Beloit approved a rezoning and issued a building permit to allow construction of a Casey’s General Store on a nearby vacant parcel within the “environs” of the historic home.
- Surrounding uses included a vacant lot, a fast-food restaurant, and two single-family dwellings (including the Perdue House).
- The parcel proposed for the store had been unsuccessfully marketed for years as a residential lot.
- Because the project could affect historic property, K.S.A. 75-2724 required determinations that (1) no feasible and prudent alternative existed and (2) all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property had been included.
- The City notified the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), who advised that the proposed store would be incompatible with and encroach upon the historic home and reminded the City of its statutory duties.
- The City conducted noticed public hearings on rezoning and the building permit, found no feasible and prudent alternative, imposed conditions intended to minimize harm, and approved the project.
- Reiter challenged the approvals in district court; the district court upheld the City’s compliance with K.S.A. 75-2724.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s determinations under K.S.A. 75-2724 were quasi-judicial actions reviewable on appeal under K.S.A. 60-2101.
2. Whether the City’s findings of “no feasible and prudent alternative” and “all possible planning” to minimize harm were lawful under the limited review standard (not fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious; substantially supported by evidence; within authority).

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court held the City’s action under K.S.A. 75-2724 was quasi-judicial and thus reviewable under K.S.A. 60-2101.
- The Court affirmed the district court and upheld the City’s approvals.
- The Court concluded the City did not act fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously; its determinations were substantially supported by evidence; and the City acted within its statutory authority.

## Legal Principles

- A political subdivision’s final order entered while exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is appealable under K.S.A. 60-2101.
- A legislative body acts quasi-judicially when law requires (1) notice, (2) a noticed public hearing, and (3) application of legally established criteria to case-specific facts.
- In reviewing local administrative action, courts may not reweigh evidence or substitute judgment; review is limited to whether the action was (1) fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious, (2) substantially supported by evidence, and (3) within the tribunal’s authority.
- Under K.S.A. 75-2724, the governing body may consider all relevant factors logically connected to whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative and whether all possible planning to minimize harm has been included; “feasible” and “prudent” carry their ordinary meaning.
- Appellate review of K.S.A. 75-2724 determinations focuses on whether the governing body took a “hard look” at relevant factors and used “plain common sense” to reach a decision supported by evidence; SHPO input is considered but is not controlling.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the City’s rezoning and permit approvals for a commercial development near a registered historic home, holding the City acted quasi-judicially and that its statutory findings under K.S.A. 75-2724 were within its authority and supported by evidence under a deferential review standard.


Reiter v. City of Beloit, 947 P.2d 425 (Kan. 1997)