The Church argues that RSO zoning limits Fountain to building only one duplex on the 9.12-acre lot because of the way a duplex is defined in § 20-1734(5). The relevant language from the definition of duplex is as follows: “A single Structure that contains two (2) primary Dwelling Units on one (1) Lot.” City Code § 20-1734(5). Though all parties contend the meaning of § 20-1734(5) is unambiguous, they do not agree on that “unambiguous” meaning. The Church points out that the section defines a duplex as a “single” structure with two primary dwelling units on one lot; it does not state “two” or “multiple” or “57” structures with two primary dwelling units on one lot. City Code § 20-1734(5). … Our discussion of the Church’s proposed interpretation of the City Code is intended to explain why the definition of “duplex” in § 20-1734(5) is ambiguous and the Church’s interpretation is plausible. We do not suggest that the Church’s interpretation is necessarily correct. The district court’s decision and the underlying arguments by the City and Fountain, along with points raised in the dissent, demonstrate that their proposed interpretation is also plausible. … We reverse the dismissal by the district court and remand the case for further proceedings.
Source: Kansas Court of Appeals
