# RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING - August 30, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 30, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4328 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4328?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-08-30 - **Last revised**: August 30, 2017 - **Length**: 4,001 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Rural Land Management Board convened on August 30, 2017, at 3:30 PM in the Council Chamber, with Mayor Jim Gray presiding as the meeting's presiding officer. The board addressed four agenda items during the session, taking a total of four votes on various motions throughout the meeting. The board accomplished several key administrative and policy tasks, including the approval of previous meeting minutes from March 27, 2017, and May 8, 2017, as well as the approval of a Housing and Farm Infrastructure Request. Additionally, the board received an informational update to the Rural Land Management Plan and voted to enter into a closed executive session. No public comments were heard during this meeting, indicating the session focused primarily on internal board business and administrative matters. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 30, 2017: • Dennis Anderson • John McNamara • Phillip Meyer • Lucy Ferguson Van Meter • Frank Penn • Mary Ann • Zach No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on four motions during the August 30, 2017 meeting, with all items passing unanimously or with minimal abstentions. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Greg motioned to approve the minutes from the March 27, 2017, and May 8, 2017, meetings. The motion passed unanimously. **Housing and Farm Infrastructure Request** [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered a Housing and Farm Infrastructure Request for Farm 5-2001, owned by Jackpot Land Company, LLC. An unidentified member made the motion, which was seconded by Frank. The motion passed unanimously. **Farm 13-2002 Offer Authorization** [timestamp: 00:00] Following discussion in closed session, the board voted to authorize an offer on Farm 13-2002. The motion was made by an unidentified member and seconded by Lucy. The authorization passed unanimously. **Multiple Farm Offers Authorization** [timestamp: 00:00] Mary Ann motioned to authorize offers on multiple farm properties discussed in closed session: Farms 2-2017, 3-2017, 4-2017, 7-2012, and 8-2013. Frank Penn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with one abstention - Zach abstained specifically on Farm 7-2012 while supporting the other farm offers. All motions were approved, allowing the board to move forward with the meeting minutes approval, the infrastructure request for Jackpot Land Company, and the various farm acquisition offers that had been deliberated in closed session. ## Motion to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2017, and May 8, 2017, meetings [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered agenda item II, a motion to approve the minutes from two previous meetings held on March 27, 2017, and May 8, 2017. Greg served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the motion for the board's consideration. The board reviewed the minutes from both meetings as part of their standard approval process. The motion was approved by the board without recorded discussion or concerns raised about the accuracy or content of either set of meeting minutes. This routine administrative action allows the minutes to become part of the official record of the board's proceedings. The approval of these minutes ensures that the official documentation of the March 27 and May 8, 2017 meetings is complete and formally accepted by the board. ## Motion to Approve the Housing and Farm Infrastructure Request [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered agenda item III.B, a motion to approve a housing and farm infrastructure request for Farm 5-2001, operated by Jackpot Land Company, LLC. Beth served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board. The discussion centered on infrastructure improvements needed for the farming operation, though specific details about the nature of the housing and infrastructure components were not detailed in the available materials. The board proceeded with their consideration of the request without recorded concerns or significant debate during the discussion period. Following the presentation and any deliberation, the board voted on the motion. The motion to approve the housing and farm infrastructure request for Farm 5-2001, Jackpot Land Company, LLC was approved by the board. ## Motion to Approve the Update to the Rural Land Management Plan [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed agenda item III.C, a motion to approve updates to the Rural Land Management Plan. This resolution-type item was presented for board consideration during the meeting. Key speakers for this agenda item included Chris Woodall and Jim Duncan, who led the discussion on the proposed plan updates. The board examined the implications of the updated Rural Land Management Plan and its potential impact on county operations and rural land use policies. The discussion focused on reviewing the specific changes and modifications proposed in the updated plan. Board members considered how these updates would affect rural land management practices and policies within their jurisdiction. This agenda item was treated as informational in nature, with the board taking time to thoroughly review and discuss the plan updates rather than moving immediately to a vote. The informational approach allowed board members to ask questions, seek clarification on specific provisions, and ensure they fully understood the scope and implications of the proposed changes before any formal action. The Rural Land Management Plan update represents an important policy document that guides how the county approaches land use decisions, conservation efforts, and development in rural areas. The board's careful review demonstrates their commitment to understanding the full impact of these policy changes on their constituents and the broader community. ## Motion to enter into Closed Executive Session [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered a motion to enter into a closed executive session during the August 30, 2017 meeting. Marrian presented the motion to move into executive session. The stated purpose of the closed session was to discuss two specific matters: • Potential real property acquisitions • Pending litigation These topics fall under the categories of business that can legally be discussed in closed session under applicable open meeting laws, as they involve sensitive negotiations and legal matters that could be compromised by public discussion. The motion was approved by the board, allowing them to proceed with the closed executive session to address these confidential matters away from public view. No further details about the specific properties or litigation were disclosed during the public portion of the meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the minutes of the March 27, 2017, and May 8, 2017, meetings - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the Housing and Farm Infrastructure Request for Farm 5-2001, Jackpot Land Company, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorize an Offer on Farm 13-2002 as discussed in Closed Session - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorize an Offer on Farms 2-2017, 3-2017, 4-2017, 7-2012 and 8-2013 as discussed in Closed Session --- ## Full transcript for those of you who are guests, there is a sign-up sheet in the cornerrer, please register your attendance for us and before we get started today, we have some new members and I'm going to introduce them starting on my left. Dennis anderson with home build ers, sitting to my left, to his left is john Mcnamara with visit lexington. To his left is phillip meyer with form bureau. Lucy ferguson van meter with historic preservation. And we are just really excited to have these people on the board. The experience they bring to the board and hopefully we can show them how to do something write. -- do do something right. First item of business is the minutes. >> greg, let me add one thing to the minutes. Page 2 on the first minutes from March 27, you have charles martin as one of the speakers. There are a couple of charles martins. I want to make sure the record reflects its Dr. Chazz martin. And shout out to you della for taking all these notes. They're great. >> okay. Entertain a motion with the correction. Do we have to vote on it. Can you give us a screen to vote there it is. For the record I did vote yes. I'm not sure why it's not show ing up. It did say I voted as well on my machine. Okay the next item on the agenda , tracey is going to give us an over view, because we have new members today. This is basically talking about ethics open meeting laws and attendance. >> I'm going to cover just a few things in general and if you all have anymore questions, you can feel free to contact me at any time. The first thing I wanted to touch base with you about is the ethics act which is in our code of ordinances in chapter 25, and the main thing that you all really need to be wear of in terms of dealing with that is conflict of interests, in other words, if some piece of property comes up in front of us or someone that you have regular dealings with that you would have benefits or the potential to benefit from financially in voting or commenting or being involved in that decision, you should probably take yourself out of that mix and recuse yourself. Sometimes things coming up that are not truly financial conflict in nature but might give the appearance of something improper if you have a question about that or you are not sure, you can check with me or beth and she'll send it on to me we can get you an answer but ultimately I'll tell you this. What we have found over the years if you get a gut feeling there might be something wrong with it, we can certainly talk about it. That's probably the best way to deal with it. So obviously there could be other situations that come up and if they do, let us know. In terms of open meetings. all of the meetings the board has are open meaning they're open to the public. That also meefns that all the minutes, documents introduced during the meeting, all those types of things, things that come out to you in the mail about the meetings are all open records and everything that takes place in this meeting is an open meeting with the exception of there are certain exceptions to the open meetings act, we'll exercise two of them later today later on. One is when we talk about negotiationses or the possibility of purchasing easements and placing values on those and what we are going to do with those on individual properties that is something we go into a closed session for. That's not an open meeting. That allows us to have discussions about what our position is going to be, what kind of money we are going to put on the table and those types of things so that we won't be at a disadvantage having to make those kinds of strategy cal decisions. The other exception that we use occasionally but not very often in here is having a closed session which is also a closed meeting for pending or potential litigation so if there is some kind of possibility of some kind of civil action or litigation matter out there and we they'd to discuss it and decide how we are going handle it and was we are going to do with it, that also can be handled in a closed meeting. In closed session meetings we don't take votes we don't take minutes but if you determine as a result of that that when you come back into an open session that you want to take some kind of action on that, then you'll have to take a vote in public. So we'll kind of guide you through that process when we get to it this afternoon for those of you that are new, but generally everything else is an open meeting and just so you also know, sometimes this comes up if you correspond by email, by text, by, you know, however about something and you send it to me or to beth or to greg or, those are also all considered open records because this is an open body that meets in open meetings so sometimes people send things and they say if I put her name on it because she is our lawyer, it is going to be privileged and protected and nobody is going to see it. That May not necessarily be true so privileges only go to if we are giving you specifically legal advice that, you know, is protected so just sometime the general policy decision or other things or things that you send to other members, if somebody asks for it, you know, like a media some type of media entity, we probably have to give it to them so just bear that in mind because I think sometimes people are not sure about that but that's generally what we have to do. The only other thing that I have been asked to talk about with you is our attendance policy and actually it's in your bylaws and it's under section d. It actually says removal but it talks about what the policy is for this board and these were adopted, I don't know, several years ago and have remained in place. I will tell you that to my knowledge I don't think this has ever been a problem, but just so you know, if a member has three consecutive unexcused absences and unexcused means you are not here and no one knows why, no one heard from you. You haven't related you have a conflict, that can subject you to possibly being removed from this board. If you Miss 20% of the boards meetings that can subject you to removal. Like I said, I don't recall that we have ever utilized that, so I can't speak to every year of the program but I started with a program back when it started and I had a period of a few years and I have been back and I can't recall any. But just keep that in mind and know that it is out there. >> anyone have any questions. The next item on the agenda we have a request for standing structure. Beth is going to bring us up to date and give us a report on that. Housing infrastructure request. This is a 110 abler farm on greenwich greenwich pike that has a new owner. Thoor turning the farm as you can see from the picture of it's current state into a working horse farm, there is a map enclosed that shows you their plans. There are, I went through this and put, like listed were there any protected structures. There is a tree line sink hole and they have indicated that on their building map so they're very aware of that new land owners are working with an engineering firm helping them design this meets the easement has no impervious surface limit and they do have the right to build the primary residence. The language that is amicable from the deed of easement is on the second page of your memo this looks to be a great working farm, the staff recommendation is approval and our conservation ist recommendation is right behind my memo that they have asked, actually it would just be better if you all want to take a minute and read that. It is from sam miller with nrcs and we have shared that with the engineer and architect and they will be practicing, you know, adopting the practices that he suggested. So the recommendation is approval. If you have any questions, you can push your speak button. Is 16 feet pretty much the standard for a farm road. It seems wide. >> I don't know if the city has a standard for farm road. I think just for the public roads. I don't know that we would have anything for that. >> where there is no impervious surface on the easement, 10 or 12 is not going, or 16, you know , with the barns and that type of stuff, they don't have any cap that they have to stay under so I don't think we have anything to say about that. If there are no more questions, I'll entertain a motion on this. >> Mr. Chair would I like to approve this request. >> pardon? >> I'd like to approve this request. >> thank you, can I get a second >> I'll second. >> frank is second. Push the button there, frank. >> I think it should be encouraged, frankly. >> that motion passed unanimous ly. Thank you all. Frank did second the motion. All right, the next item we have today is the rural land manage ment plan update. Mr. Duncan and Miss Woodall. Chris and jim Mr. Chairperson, members of the board, a privilege to be here with you this afternoon, my name is chris woodall with the difficult significants of planning. Behind your packets, you should have a couple of things from us that I believe beth passed out. One that looks like this should be a summary of facts from the original 1999 plan as well as the 2017 and then a letter from the green space commission as well. I'm going to give you a brief history of the rural management plan. The rural management plan was adopted in 1999 as an element to our comprehensive plan following a two-year process in response to the community desire to have a comprehensive plan for the program for the rural area that reinforces the protection of the valuable rural resources. The plan is primarily used as a resource for land use decisions that are made in the rural areas as well as such as zone map amendments or conditional uses. that includes a comprehensive study of the land and its uses in rural service area that include agricultural and natural areas as well as rural activity centers, rural settlements, environmentally sensitive areas, rural roads and many more. Additionally several important pieces of policy came out of that 1999 plan, including not ably the purchase of development rights program, which you all are very familiar with as well as the 40-acre minimum lot size in the rural service area. The 1999 plan prominently highlighted the previous 10-acre minimum lot sizes as a serious threat to the rural service area and subsequently shortly after the adoption of the plan into the comprehensive plan, the 40- acre minimum lot size went into effect. So we'll teleport from 1999 and bring us into 2013. In the 2013 comprehensive plan, it called for and somewhat over due update to the rural management plan including language in the goals and object ives of 2013 plan as well as the implementation table. So in 2015, the planning staff approached the rural land manage ment board, the green space commission and the plan ning commission about forming a working group to update this which was, at that time, a 16-year-old plan. So members of this working group included some representatives of this body mariannea, charlie farmer, greg butler and jamie mi lard from the green space commission and jaime owens and mike penn from the planning commission additionally beth, our director jim duncan, myself and cindy deets who is a recently retired green space planner and put a lot of sweat equity into this plan, and was the primary author, we all sort of combined to create the working group to go through this process. So that group met for 13 months and over 13 meetings discussed the plan, reviewed the policy, highlighted potential issues, made recommendations for text edits and upon review of the '9 plan, the group decided there were no substantial policy changes that needed to be made from the 1999 plan. However there was a substantial effort that was made to make significant text alterations to reflect the current conditions of the rural service area now detailed summary of revisions made to the 1999 plan were included in the rural management plan packet that you all receiv ed so, the most recent version that you all have received of this, those comments that we received from those two bodies as well as from additional planning staff are reflected in the most recent version the summary document of that was included in the packet you should have received earlier the revised draft was given to the green space commission at their last meeting on August 23 last week and they voted unanimously to recommend that the planning commission approve the rural land management plan and that's the letter that you all have before you today. So what are the next steps for this document? staff will be formatting and finalizing a version of it for the October 19 planning commission work session. We will be sending that document out to the planning mission as -- commission as well as this body ahead of the meeting for you all to review. So we would encourage you all to listen in, if you feel so inclined to the planning commission as they consider it, the October work session. But planning staff will be recommending to the planning commission that this final version of the document be included in the 2013 comprehensive plan as an element and it would supplant the previous version that was included. So it would then be rolled into the 2018 plan and every subsequent plan in the future. So, at this point, we are not go ing any specific action from you this afternoon, but we are seeking your support on this update. It's an important document that guides land use decisions in our rural area. And so we are asking for your support and our preference to be to have this board's recommendation of approval for this document to the planning commission prior to the public hearing which would be tentative ly scheduled for November of this year. So, if you all have any questions or comments about the draft, we would be happy to answer those. But please let me know, feel free to contact me also as we work through this process if you all have anything you need to convey to me on that. I know both knows how to get hold of me and Mr. Penn and m r. Bell I'm sure can track me down as well. So but in all seriousness, if you have any questions or concerns,we would be happy to address those. >> okay, frank. >> this sing was shepherd by cindy who went line by line and mariannea and mike and I follow ed her lead. We tried to change and update everything we could. I would encourage you to read it if you find something that either you don't understand or you think is wrong, contact the staff and it will be updated in the final version or we'll talk about it at the planning commission hearing but by the time it gets to us I would hope that everybody has read it and that if we have any situations that need to be cleaned up, it will be helpful if that was done prior to our planning commission hearing. Jim duncan or chris can take care of it for us. I would encourage you to read it before it comes to us. That's one less ching we have to change when we are trying to consider. >> the item I have the most question about is restaurants and corner stores and... I understand historically they have been there but it seems to me by putting, leaving it in there that when the zoning ordinance largely prohibited them, it opens the door for. >> I would have to look at the specific context but I think it is referring to existing zoning within there. Mr. Duncan, if you have any additional comments on that as well. >> I believe we are looking at the cross road, rural activity centers that have urban zonings from decades ago and some of the services if they could be supported by existing infrastructure or onsite infrastructure could be beneficial to users and residents in the rurallary there was consideration given to going through the rural area and eliminateing and over the years that idea has been rejected not to expand those, though, you are absolutely right. That's not the intent. The intent is to allow to stay what is already there and encourage appropriate land use on those parcels but the larger policies of the rural land management plan and the comprehensive plan would not support urban zoning outside a specified area in the rural area >> I think we are saying the same thing that is something we could punk wait in the comprehensive plan. >> anyone else want to ask any questions. Are you okay at this point? >> next on the agenda is reimbursement forms. Made a commitment to share those standard operating procedure but to make sure that we have the right numbers and we are in balance and so forth the forms that follow. Basicallier with we request reimbursement from the federal government. >> is this going to become standard procedure. Are we going to see all the reimbursement forms going forward? >> yes, frank. >> are they a matter of public record? >> yes. >> okay. I just hadn't seen these before is the reason I asked. >> it's part of the normal process we have. >> I've seen them as far as what you are talking about, but I've never seen them just as a board member. To confer funds, there appears to be a typo error, actually it is on the certification statement compare matching funds a line where they've got 1,461, 428,000, that one million should not be in there. >> yes, thank you for pointing that out. Phil did email me before the meeting and I told him he is an insurance salesman by trade and we are going to be happy to have him on here reviewing these. This has already gone through and we've been reimbursed 91. 28 million. So I -- the 1.28 million. And any time you see something like that, just let us know but we did want to start sharing these with you all. Occasionally we will be as farms close, we will sometimes be being a few at a time. In this case these were all the farms from our 2014 agreement and they all closed within a week of each other. We were able to qt entire grant amount at once but as we slowly close farms we will probably be giving you two or three of these at once. This is just a way for you all to see was we are turning in. >> what happens is that if you get another farm in the vicinity that doesn't have the exact points that that farm has and those people are expecting the same kind of money so it's all based on the quality of the soil and the frontage and all that type of thing, so when you look at these words or numbers, don't just assume that because there is another farm on that road that that what is you are looking at because the lease is different from every farm. >> we let the land owners know that because there is the pdr map that shows you can click on each parcel and see what every land owner was paid and who submitted the easements so we tell people to be aware of that and, you know, it's not always going to be the same and depend ing on years, size, soil, there is multiple factors a couple of announcements and then we'll ask for the public if anyone wants to speak. First thing is an announcement which you all received, I think, we will be scheduling an annual application deadline for mid October and we will be in touch with the board for more information on that but we should start another application round in October. Obviously we should meet before then anyway. So and also, some of you who have been on the board, others, new ones are not maybe aware fully that we have been doing an ordinance review committee for certain policies and procedures that's been under place. nathan started that and that has been off the board. We are going to reach out for a work association this so we will be reaching out to the board to find a date to do another work session like we did before to get everybody back on board on that so we can get it back to the board and take action on those things. There is some things we were probably ready to do but because of the transition and some of the timing we thought it best to go over it again before we come back to the board with it. Is there anyone here from the public who wants to speak to us today? So we now have a motion then to enter closed executive session. We enter that pursuant to krs 61 .810 to discuss the potential acquisition of real property interest the public discussion of which is likely to affect the value and pursuant to ksr 61. 8101 c to discuss proposed or pending litigation. I need a motion and second on that. Marrian has made the motion. I don't think she can second. >> how did I do that? You did it. I'm an innocent person. Should I withdraw my second? >> can we get a verbal second? Frank pn made a verbal second. All those in favor raise your right hand. Opposed. Like sign. Unanimous. We are in closed session. Okay, we're ready to take a motion. The first motion is on farm 13, 2002 as discussed in close session. Looking for a second. Lucy seconds. Motion carries unanimously. And we have one more. We don't have the screen to make a motion yet. On our terminals anyway. I guess we'll do. We can do this by a show of hands and so forth. First of all, I need a motion on this motion. Mary ann makes the motion. Need a second. Second by frank penn. All those in favor raise your right hand. Okay. Everyone is unanimous but I believe zach has... >> I vote in the affirmative ab staining however on farm 7, 2012. >> thank you, zach. >> did you get that okay? All right. All right I need a motion to adjourn. Motion by zach second by mary ann, all in favor, leave. Meeting is over.