of the Jefferson Circuit Court and hold that the Innovative Residential Development Regulations of Jefferson County are unconstitutional and, therefore, void. LAMBERT, C.J.; KELLER and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., concur. KELLER, J., concurs by separate opinion, with LAMBERT, C.J., joining that concurring opinion. COOPER, J., dissents by separate opinion, with GRAVES and JOHNSTONE, JJ., joining that dissenting opinion. 1 . The initial application was filed by Capstone Development, Inc, the original developer of this subdivision. However, while this appeal was pending, the subdivision was sold to Mareli. By agreed order, the original owners of the property and Capstone were dismissed as parties and Mareli was substituted as a party defendant. 2 . See Hacker v. Baesler, Ky., 812 S.W.2d 706 (1991) (<HOLDING>). KELLER, Justice, concurring. I agree with the
holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process holding that a mayor of an urbancounty government lacked authority to veto a zoning ordinance because the right to vote conflicted with the legislatives right to enact zoning ordinances holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance when a zoning department employee mistakenly stamped the plaintiffs application for a license to operate a laundromat to indicate compliance with the ordinance holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding plaintiffs challenging zoning ordinance lacked standing because among other reasons none is himself subject to the ordinances strictures