Correction: A previous version of this story inaccurately stated there were 3,709 certified signatures on the “rezoning” petition. This story has been updated with the correct number: 3,130.
Two days of hearings related to three citizen petitions in Prairie Village wrapped up Thursday, and a Johnson County judge is expected to rule by early next week on whether the measures meet the legal threshold to be placed on the Nov. 7 ballot.
Thursday was the second day in court for the closely-watched petitions, which seek to remake the city’s government and define “rezoning” in order to limit development in single-family neighborhoods.
Judge Rhonda Mason of Division 4 at the Johnson County District Court in Olathe heard oral arguments mostly regarding one of the petitions on Thursday, the one focused on rezoning.
Attorneys representing the city of Prairie Village and another representing the nonprofit PV United, which is pressing for the petitions to go before voters, gave their arguments.
The “rezoning” petition heard in court Thursday would ask voters whether to prohibit Prairie Village from changing the city’s zoning guidelines to allow accessory dwelling units — sometimes referred to as “granny flats” — and other multi-family developments in single-family neighborhoods, which make up the vast majority of Prairie Village.
Mason heard oral arguments on the two other petitions, both related to proposed changes in city government, on Wednesday.
One would “abandon” Prairie Village’s current “strong mayor” form of government, according to the petition’s language.
The other would “adopt” a new form of government by slashing the city council in half, removing six current councilmembers in the middle of their terms.
Read the Post’s recap of Wednesday’s proceedings here.
After the Johnson County Election Office certified the petitions’ thousands of signatures, the city filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment to toss the petitions out.
As she did on Wednesday, Mason ended Thursday’s hearing with no decision but indicated she would issue a ruling by early next week.
Thursday’s hearing focused on the rezoning petition
The “rezoning” petition, alongside the two government-related petitions, were circulated by Stop Rezoning PV, a resident-led group often referred to interchangeably with PV United, earlier this summer.
For the “rezoning” petition, the county election office certified 3,130 signatures earlier this month.
The petition calls for limiting rezoning and, in particular, limiting the use of accessory dwelling units — such as “granny flats” in a home’s backyard — in Prairie Village.
It would also ask voters to prevent accessory dwelling units and other types of multi-family housing in singly-family neighborhoods.
The three petitions were borne out of residents’ pushback to the city’s housing recommendations, first approved last summer, that aimed to have the city contemplate how best to diversify the city’s housing stock and address rising housing costs in the increasingly expensive suburb.
PV United says residents deserve to vote on rezoning
The arguments Thursday sometimes pivoted around technical and arcane terms.
Rex Sharp, the attorney representing PV United, argued that the “rezoning” petition is a “legislative ordinance,” meaning it would create a new law in Prairie Village.
Prairie Village city code does not currently define “rezoning,” he said, and therefore, the “rezoning” petition would institute an entirely new policy.
Sharp also pointed to case law in which Johnson County residents in the past have proposed even further restrictions on rezoning than what PV United is asking for.
Sharp pointed to a 2009 case in Fairway in which one of two resident-proposed ordinances called for barring rezoning outright across the city.
Sharp, who is the husband of Prairie Village City Council candidate Lori Sharp, argued that PV United’s “rezoning” petition does not go as far as that one because rezoning would still be allowed on a lot-by-lot basis in Prairie Village.
“What we’re trying to do is not allow citywide rezoning without due process,” Sharp said.
Prairie Village argued only the city can ‘tinker’ with zoning code
Joe Hatley, a partner at the law firm Spencer Fane LLP, which is representing the city, argued that the “rezoning” petition would not be a “legislative ordinance” but an “administrative ordinance.”
In his argument, that means the “rezoning” petition would be executing a policy already on Prairie Village’s books. Specifically, Hatley said, the proposed “rezoning” ordinance would be executing Village Vision 2.0, the city’s comprehensive plan adopted in 2021.
An “administrative ordinance,” Hatley argued, requires specialized training on the part of city staff to understand any potential ripple effects.
“Administrative ordinances” cannot be taken to a ballot, he argued, because you “can’t leave it to people laser-focused on one issue… [who] aren’t going to consider the ramifications” of the policies they want to enact.
Hatley also pointed out that the example of the Fairway case that Sharp used in his own arguments actually bolstered the city’s case because that proposed petition in Fairway was ultimately deemed an “administrative ordinance” and kept off the ballot.
Attorneys also clashed again over government petitions
Though Thursday’s hearing focused mostly on the “rezoning” petition, some of the discussion returned to the government-related petitions that were at the heart of Wednesday’s hearing.
The Prairie Village City Council currently has 12 councilmembers, two in each city ward, and the “adoption” petition, if it is approved by voters, would effectively remove six of them from office mid-term after they were elected just two years ago.
Hatley argued Thursday that would be illegal.
Given that the petitions are coming forward after the filing deadline this year, Hatley argued that those six councilmembers have already lost their opportunity to put their names on this November’s ballot, when they could potentially be ousted with passage of the “adoption” petition.
Sharp responded that he saw nothing illegal about truncating the terms of those six councilmembers, saying that the city had shown no evidence of that.
Hatley responded that that was because “nobody has been brazen enough” to try to remove elected officials from office mid-term in this way.
He added that removing those councilmembers via a petition could prompt future legal action.
“If we let these [petitions] go on a ballot, we’ll be back (here) again — and it will be worse,” Hatley said.
Sharp, for his part, argued that if the six councilmembers — whose terms all end in 2026 — want to run in the 2023 general election, there is “still plenty of time” to run as write-in candidates.
The six councilmembers in question, Sharp said, “are the same six people who have used taxpayer” money to hire two attorneys and “keep (the petitions) off the ballot.”
Sharp argued voters will be able to create the government they want with both the “abandon” and “adoption” petitions.
“If that means six people have their term shortened, so be it,” Sharp said.
What’s next?
Mason said the “rezoning” petition arguments and the readings both counselors provided are being taken under advisement.
She said the court is going to “make every attempt” to meet the election office’s Sept. 5 or 6 deadline — the latest time county election officials say that they can hear back about whether the petitions are valid and potentially be placed on the Nov. 7 ballot.
