## Facts

- Wabaunsee County’s comprehensive plan prioritized preserving the county’s rural, agricultural, and scenic character and supporting tourism tied to scenic vistas.
- Several landowners entered contracts with wind-energy developers to build large-scale commercial wind farms; certain “wind-rights owners” intervened.
- After learning of the proposed projects, the Board imposed a moratorium and amended county zoning regulations to:
  - Prohibit commercial wind energy conversion systems countywide; and
  - Permit only limited noncommercial/smaller wind systems under restrictive conditions.
- The Board cited concerns about visual impacts on scenic views, effects on property values, impacts on tourism, and incompatibility with the county’s rural character.
- The landowners challenged the amendments, alleging (among other claims) that the ban was unreasonable, improperly driven by aesthetic opposition, and amounted to an uncompensated taking.
- The district court dismissed the action and entered judgment for the Board; the landowners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s countywide prohibition of commercial wind farms was a reasonable exercise of zoning and police power under Kansas law.
2. Whether the landowners and wind-rights owners had a constitutionally cognizable, vested property right to build commercial wind farms such that the amendments effected a compensable taking.
3. Whether the Board’s action was arbitrary or capricious for allegedly relying on generalized aesthetic opposition and failing to consider relevant factors, including private economic impacts and possible siting alternatives.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and upheld the zoning amendments.
- The court held the commercial-wind ban was reasonable legislative zoning tied to legitimate public-welfare objectives, including aesthetics, property values, and tourism.
- The court held the plaintiffs lacked a vested property right in commercial wind development because any ability to proceed depended on discretionary governmental approvals; without a vested right, the takings claim failed.
- The court concluded the Board adequately considered relevant planning factors and public input and did not act arbitrarily or unlawfully.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning decisions are legislative in nature; judicial review is limited to whether the action is reasonable and bears a rational relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- Aesthetic impacts may support zoning regulation, particularly when linked to legitimate public objectives such as preserving scenic character, protecting property values, and maintaining tourism.
- A takings claimant must first establish a constitutionally cognizable property interest; a vested right must be fixed and not dependent on future contingencies or discretionary governmental decisions.
- No vested right arises where the proposed land use requires discretionary approvals (including conditional use-type approvals); contracts and development plans alone do not create a protected entitlement.
- Under Kansas reasonableness review (including consideration of the Golden factors), local governments need not apply a rigid checklist if the record shows consideration of relevant impacts and the public benefit versus private hardship.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Wabaunsee County’s countywide ban on commercial wind farms as a reasonable zoning choice grounded in public-welfare considerations and rejected constitutional takings claims because the plaintiffs had no vested right to develop a land use requiring future discretionary approval.


Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 289 Kan. 926, 218 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2009)