# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - September 24, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 24, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5217 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5217?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-09-24 - **Last revised**: July 14, 2026 - **Length**: 3,594 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on September 24, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference, with Larry Forester presiding. The Commission considered two agenda items during the meeting. One item—the Juby LLC (AMD) Zoning Map Amendment and Ramsey Sullivan Property (FKA Belmont Industrial Park Tract 1) Zoning Development Plan—was postponed. The second item, PLN-ZOTA 20-00004: Amendment to Article 1: Definition of Tenant Homes, was approved. The Commission took two votes and heard one public comment during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** Headley Bell, Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, Bruce Nicol, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Graham Pohl, Bill Wilson, Jim Duncan, Traci Wade, Hal Baillie, Stephanie Cunningham, Debbie Woods, Jeff Neal, Deepika Eyunni, Vaughan Adkins, Captain Greg Lengal, Firefighter Embry Beatty, and Tracy Jones. **Absent:** Janice Meyer and Ivy Barksdale. **Late:** Ivy Barksdale. ## Votes and Decisions **PLN-MAR-20-00002: Postponement of Juby LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Ramsey Sullivan Property Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:05:49] A motion to postpone the Juby LLC zoning map amendment and Ramsey Sullivan Property zoning development plan was made by Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Bill Wilson. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All voting members supported postponement: Headley Bell, Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, Bruce Nicol, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Graham Pohl, Bill Wilson, Jim Duncan, and Traci Wade. **PLN-ZOTA 20-00004: Approval of Amendment to Article 1: Definition of Tenant Homes** [timestamp: 00:26:29] A motion to approve an amendment to Article 1 regarding the definition of tenant homes was made by Frank Penn and seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All voting members supported approval: Headley Bell, Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, Bruce Nicol, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Graham Pohl, Bill Wilson, Jim Duncan, and Traci Wade. ## Public Comment Beth Overman spoke during the public comment period on behalf of the Rural Land Management Board and the Purchase of Development Rights Program [timestamp: 00:24:54]. She read a letter expressing support for the proposed text amendment related to tenant home definition. The letter requested prompt completion of the amendment process. ## Juby LLC (AMD) Zoning Map Amendment & Ramsey Sullivan Property (FKA Belmont Industrial Park Tract 1) Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 00:04:12] The applicant requested a postponement of this zoning map amendment and development plan to allow additional time to work with staff on compliance matters. **Key Issues Identified** The Zoning Committee and staff identified several areas requiring further development: - Incomplete alignment with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan goals - Unresolved transportation concerns - Green infrastructure requirements not fully addressed - Place-type criteria not met **Recommendation** Both the Zoning Committee and staff recommended postponement to allow the applicant to address these outstanding issues before the item returns for consideration. **Outcome** The item was postponed. ## PLN-ZOTA 20-00004: Amendment to Article 1: Definition of Tenant Homes [timestamp: 00:07:22] Staff presented a proposed text amendment to update the definition of "tenant home" to "farm employee dwelling unit" in Article 1. The amendment aims to better support workforce housing on farms, align with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, and support the PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program. **Key Speakers:** - Hal Baillie - Beth Overman **Presentation and Support:** The amendment received support from the Rural Land Management Board and staff. No public opposition was raised during the discussion. **Outcome:** The amendment was approved. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-20-00002** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Juby LLC zoning map amendment and Ramsey Sullivan Property zoning development plan - **PLN-ZOTA 20-00004** — passed (10-0): Approval of amendment to Article 1: Definition of Tenant Homes --- ## Full transcript And in the love I meant to break, I'd do anything to be your favorite man. I just want to be your favorite man. Open up the melody of your heart and let me be The thing you ought to be And I'll set up a bit on the string I, it might stay here without you Don't you, darling, now I want you laying in the love I'm yet to bring If I do anything, it's going to be your everything I know when to go out I know when to stay in Get things done. There's no sign of life It's just the power to charm I'm lying in the rain Better never wait by-bye But I try I try Never gonna fall for What's beside me What's on fire We're going to start this meeting, get everything in order. Hope everyone is having a good week so far. We call this meeting in order. It's now 1.30. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting, the zoning items public hearing. Before we move forward, I need to read the governor's statement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of the emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing. This meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05 in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary location for the meeting. Next on the agenda item, we'll move down to number two, the approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes, August 13, 2020, and the August 27, 2020 minutes. Okay, Ms. Plumlee, does this a motion? Move approval of August 13, 2020 minutes, and August 27, 2020 minutes. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second for that motion. Mr. Pohl, thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, please put your hand. Mr. Wilson, I can ask that your hand, too. Thank you, sir. It's unanimous. Thank you. Next up, postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements? Yes, sir. looks like Brendan Gross has his hand raised. Good. Mr. Gross, you've been promoted. Go ahead and show your video. Are you guys there? Yes. Sorry, I buffered for a second, so I didn't know if I had lost communication with you guys. Everyone, welcome. Ms. Parksdale, welcome to the committee. This is the first time I've seeing you um but my item is uh item number one on agenda on agenda page two jubie llc and we would like a postponement for 30 days to your october meeting um which bear with me here i apologize i usually write that down i forgot to so wade do you know what date that is you're waiting a month a month october 22nd so we'd like to postpone to october 22nd we continue to work with staff um on various issues we've made we've made headway in some areas and when we still are discussions in others so we think um we would like a 30-day postponement All right. So we have a request from the applicant to waive, excuse me, to postpone item number one, Juby LLC for 30 days to October 22nd. We have a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Move postponement of Juby until October the 22nd. We have a motion. We have a second. Mr. Wilson, thank you. okay any discussion to that motion hearing none all in favor please raise your hand all righty that's unanimous okay mr gross thank you everybody i'll stop you next month mr gross yes sir before i let you go i see your sons in the background in the window laughing at so they're gone now yeah that's unfortunately when you got two young ones around you never know what they're getting into hey man i understand i'm glad it's not just me you guys have a great day thank you Okay. So we are going to move on to any other postponements. I don't see any. So we're moving on to page four. This public hearing on zoning ordinance, Texas amendments, PLN, Zota 20-4. And it was free to stand. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is on page four, item C1. You should also be able to find all supporting documentation in the Google Drive that was sent out to you earlier. And this is PLN Zota-20-0004, an amendment to Article I, definition of tenant homes. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen right now. So this text amendment was brought to the Urban County Council first by the Rural Land Management Board, seeking to get some clarification and modification of the definition of a tenant home. On January 28, 2020, the Urban County Council referred the text amendment to the Planning Commission to review the definition of tenant home, while also clarifying and making any necessary recommendations regarding who can live in a tenant home on a farm. This was discussed by the Planning Commission Actual Work Session on August 20th, initiated by the Planning Commission on August 27th, and then the staff alternative was recommended for approval by the Zoning Committee on September 3rd, 2020. The intent and limitations of tenant homes have been kind of discussed over the past several months, and these are some of the major concerns that have led to this text amendment being discussed today. It was first defined in 1983, and there has been no or very small changes since that time. It was intended to supply workforce housing to those who are actively engaged in the agriculture on the property, and it was permitted to be built as a standard house and a mobile home or a manufactured home. It currently cannot be occupied by a family member or farm manager. Agricultural definition already allows for a family member occupancy dwelling unit on site as a principal primary structure. That is the dwelling unit or the residence that's on the site. Standard built tenant homes that has no limit on the quantity that can be built on site. However, in 1999, there was a text amendment that limited the amount of mobile homes that could be utilized on an agricultural site for the purposes of a tenant home. They are an accessory use, so they can't be subdivided from the overall agricultural tract. Just a bit of historical information. Although the quantity restriction had been brought up for tenant homes in 1999, it was removed by the council. The Division of Building Inspection currently issues permits for all single-family homes and agricultural structures if they're necessary. The Rural Land Management Board has also relied heavily on the existing ordinance to draft conservation and purchase of development right easements. This is one of the major push for today's conversation as those easements have been changing. And there's been a little bit of a concern about how family farms are being organized or operated going into the future. The recent definition of tenant home and who can occupy the tenant home is that concern. concern. So previous to this coming to the planning commission, there were several concerns that were brought up with the Urban County Council, including the reason or the no clear reason for prohibiting a farm manager from occupying a tenant home. Some of the restrictions of KRS and how it may or may not work with an agricultural use. The ability for a second residents for family members that are currently utilized for a second residence, but are actually against the current zoning ordinance and some of those building permits. So there was a bit of conversation before about those residential uses on site, limiting the agricultural track to one single family residence and the impact that that might have on family farming. And then the future use of secondary family dwelling units that cannot be subdivided or otherwise regulated. There were a couple of other things that led to the renaming of this section within the zoning ordinance. Currently, the term tenant home is outdated. It is a reference to a practice that was heavily used primarily following the Civil War extending into the early 1930s when smaller tenant farms were replaced really heavily due to mechanicalization of farms and a lot more technological increases. The tenant homes are the only type of dwelling unit that we currently regulate based off of an activity on a property or a use. And then there have been discussions about the enforceable, how this is enforceable within the zoning ordinance. If restrictions are currently being ignored and how these can be made a little bit more user-friendly. There have been some conversations of short-term rentals as well as how to allow for more caretakers or family members on site that are not involved in the agricultural use. Those were all previous to our discussion at the work session in August. During that August work session there was really a discussion of both the language that was being proposed by staff and some of the scope of what we really were looking to do with this text amendment. The focus of this text amendment that we gathered from that conversation at work session was to provide availability of workforce housing to farm managers and family members that are engaged in that agricultural use. So they're employees of that agricultural use, and then to maintain the focus on the agricultural use, the business side of our agricultural areas. What was determined not to be the focus of this text amendment was accessory dwelling units, ADUs in the rural service area, and then limitations regarding the quantities of tenant homes. That was discussed as something that we were not going to discuss with this tax amendment. So when we reviewed many of these aspects of the tax amendment, we first must look at how this is playing with the landscape and playing with what is being done on site. Currently, there is a real separation between workforce housing residential and a pure residential use. By limiting the occupants of a dwelling unit associated with the agricultural business operations, it is allowable to be done considering it is workforce housing. There is a fair amount of both case law and precedent when it comes to workforce housing that allows for cities to regulate them. And it is important to make the case that that is connected to the business of agriculture, not the residential aspect of agriculture. Further, we're limiting the residential use of a property, by limiting the residential use of a property beyond workforce housing to certain individuals or groups of individuals, we could start to run afoul of the Fair Housing Act established in 1968. So that is really important why we're focusing this on employees and not having a broader discussion of who can or cannot live in a dwelling unit. It has been fairly well established that employees are what we are looking at here today, and that's what our focus should be, because there are down-the-line impacts that could cause some major complications. Additionally, any expanded housing options within the agricultural lands should be further researched, especially when we're talking about increased densities, infrastructure, or potential impacts on other articles of the zoning ordinance. So what is a tenant home in Article 1-11? Currently, it is defined as an accessory residence located in an agricultural zone occupied by a person other than the owner's family or the farm manager engaged in the full-time agricultural use on the property. So in blue there and bold, those were the crux of this discussion. That was the worry of the Rural Land Management Board and the Urban County Council that brought it to the Planning Commission. During our discussion at the work session, we did come to a conversation of this definition, dwelling unit for a farm employee or a farm employee dwelling unit. This would be defined as an accessory residence located in an agricultural zone maintained exclusively for the occupancy of employees and their families or the owner's immediate family, And this is the major portion of it in connection with an agricultural use on the property. So we are making that direct connection or that nexus approach to the farm as a business and an operation that is yielding agricultural or horticultural products and the individuals that are working there. So that's a very important aspect of all of this. There are other references to tenant homes. We did not bring this to you previously during the work session, but it was discussed during our zoning committee in which we would just be replacing the term tenant home with farm employee dwelling unit. This occurs in four different articles or four different sections of our zoning ordinance. The agricultural rural zone, the agricultural buffer zone, and the agricultural natural zone would all have this replacement language in which farm employee dwelling unit provided all yard requirements for a principal residence are met. And then in Article 10-12b, mobile homes in the agricultural zones, we would again be replacing tenant home with farm employee dwelling unit where it occurs. And this is, again, getting at that limitation of the mobile homes that are allowable to be used as tenant homes in agricultural zones. Based off of our research and the conversations that we've had with the Planning Commission, this language does comply with the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of the staff alternative text. Now, the staff alternative text, again, just references Articles 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 10-12. Staff believes that this approval recommendation is appropriate for the following reasons. The proposed text amendment is agreement with the comp plan. It supports the agricultural economy, horse farms, general agricultural farms, and rural character of the rural service area by allowing for employees of a farm, no matter the relationship to the owner, to live and work on site. Additionally, the proposed text supports the PDR program, allowing for its expansion and the preservation of farms in the area. And finally, the proposed text allows for the modernization of the zoning ordinance to encourage family farms while also maintaining a clear tie between those living on the farm and agricultural production. So with that, I've gone fairly quickly, but if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them at this time. All right. Thank you, Hal. Does any commission members have any questions for Hal or staff? Mr. Newcomb? Yes, I do have a question for staff. During our conversation, we wanted to also to exclude from the conversation any future considerations for Airbnb rental type homes. We wanted to make sure that that was not a part of this. I just want to make sure that whenever that ruling comes through, that this language is not too, that exclusive language excludes it from being able to participate in whatever this broader Airbnb conversation is. people are going to have? So yes, this is established for workforce housing. So anybody that would be living in a tenant home would have to be an employee of that farm. Let's say for Airbnbs, that's a residential function. Currently, it's outlined under our dwelling unit count. So they would have to stay for at least a week at a time. And during that week, they would have to be working at that farm. So it does not lend itself to be able to be an Airbnb or a short-term rental. It should not be rented, period, unless that individual is working on site and is part of the agricultural process there. Okay, I just wanted to make sure, because I know we're going to have many conversations about airbnb i didn't i just wanted to make sure that um how this type of property would be included or excluded because that's a broader conversation that we are going to be having they're going to be having on the council level and i'm sure we're going to see plenty of that ourselves i just wanted to um make sure everyone knows the intent of what we're doing here now we were excluding that conversation of Airbnb. Yes. And that gets into our discussion of excluding any conversation about accessory dwelling units as well. That was not part of this conversation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dan. Al, I also assume that this will get rid of the affidavit that the building inspection was having people sign. Do you see any reason why it would not? I think, and Ms. Wade might have to correct me on this, I think they would still need to show that this is for workforce housing. That would be the, and we would have to discuss this with building inspection, but I would assume that they would still need to sign an affidavit saying that this was not to be used as a residential accommodation, being a rental or a Airbnb or short-term rental. It would be focused exclusively on employment housing. So farm employee or workforce housing. Or family members. The family members are included in that so long as they're part of that farm operation. Because when you get into engaged or to... Anyway, I don't mind the affidavit as long as we've taken out the other language. But I want the affidavit to, it goes back to Mr. Nichols' comments about the accessory dwelling units being an Airbnb or being a short-term rental. As long as we stay focused on the agricultural use, then I think it'll work. Once you get past that, you get back into the accessory dwelling, you get back into the Airbnb and get back into the... Yes, and in reality this is focused on trying to provide solutions to promote small or family farm operations in which it is clearly focused on the continuation of agricultural uses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kent. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Are we okay with the affidavit language? Do we need to add something to cover that? We'll need to update building inspection if this is approved by the council and ask that they update their affidavit to reflect the new definition. Thank you. Anyone else? I see if there's anyone in the audience today. Moving from the commission members, is there anyone in the audience today that would like to speak on behalf of this agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand. Okay. Okay. Not seeing any. I'll bring this back to the commission members and close that portion out and look for further questions or a motion on the table. I would just say to Ms. Overman, who's present in the audience, we didn't share the email you forwarded to me earlier today. If you want to read that into the record, that might be helpful. Ms. Overman, we have promoted you to a panelist if you'd like to start your audio and video to read that letter. She might just be observing today. Let's see if I can pull it up on my hand. Or Hal, did you bring your service pro with you? Oh, there she is. Okay. Hi. Let's see. Okay, yes. I'll be happy to read that. So this is from, I'm reading this on behalf of the board. and Gloria Martin, our chair, had another meeting. So I'll do the honors here. The Rural Land Management Board and the Purchase of Development Rights Program support the proposed text amendment. The proposed definition was shared with the board at their September 2nd, 2020 meeting and no opposition was voiced. The new language will provide consistent guidance for tenant homes, dwelling units across the divisions of planning, building inspection and PDR. The language will also facilitate the rural land management board's efforts to conserve farmland by encouraging the continuance of family farms and by providing landowners the security of having a farm manager living on site if needed we appreciate the inclusion of the pdr program as a supportive citation in the staff recommendation for approval and ask that this process be completed as soon as possible thank you you. That is all. Wait, do we have anyone else that need to read off anything before I? No, sir. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Alrighty, so we're chairs entertaining your motion. Mr. Penn? I move for approval of PLN 2,0004, amendment to Article 1, and the definition of tenant home. We have a motion. Second. I'll stay up. Okay, we have a second. Ms. Mundley, any discussions to their motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please raise your hand. It's unanimous. Motion is approved. Thank you. Okay. Any commission items? Mr. Duncan is there. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you all. Mr. Chair, I would say you get a dozen gold stars for today's meeting. So may all of our meetings be this way. And to that end, we will meet with you all again next week in a new month, October 1st, for the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee at 830, committee at 130. and look forward to being with you all at that time. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If you're not saying anything else, this meeting is adjourned unless someone else wants to stop talking. Not hearing none. Graham? No, that was you motioning to adjourn. That was good. Goodbye. Oh, hey, that was perfect, Graham. See you, everybody. Au revoir. Thank you.