Urban County Council Special Meeting - Zone Change

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Council met on September 22, 2015, at 6:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, located at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507. Kevin Stinnett presided over the meeting.

The council addressed one agenda item during the session: the second reading of Ordinance 1028-15, which was approved. The council took three motions and votes during the meeting and heard four public comments from members of the community.

Attendance

Present: Kevin Stinnett, Hensley, Lamb, Moloney, Mossotti, Scutchfield, Bledsoe, F. Brown, J. Brown, Farmer, and Gibbs

Absent: Henson, Kay, Akers, and Evans

Late: None reported

Votes and Decisions

Ordinance 1028-15: Zoning Change (First Reading) 1:38:42

A motion was made by Hensley and seconded by Gibbs to pass an ordinance changing the zone from Expansion Area Residential-1 (EAR-1) to Expansion Area Residential-2 (EAR-2) for 46.64 net (47.18 gross) acres at 1551 Deer Haven Ln. The motion passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 1 nay.

Voting in favor: Hensley, Lamb, Moloney, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Bledsoe, F. Brown, J. Brown, Farmer, and Gibbs

Voting against: Mossotti

Ordinance 1028-15: Zoning Change (Approval) 1:39:43

A motion was made by Farmer and seconded by F. Brown to approve the ordinance changing the zone from EAR-1 to EAR-2 for 46.64 net (47.18 gross) acres at 1551 Deer Haven Ln. The motion passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 1 nay.

Voting in favor: Hensley, Lamb, Moloney, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Bledsoe, F. Brown, J. Brown, Farmer, and Gibbs

Voting against: Mossotti

Adjournment 1:40:14

A motion was made by Bledsoe and seconded by F. Brown to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Public Comment

Two residents spoke during the public comment period, each addressing concerns about a proposed zone change.

Steve Richter (Greenbrier neighborhood representative) spoke twice during the meeting:

• 1:00:04 Richter opposed the zone change, citing concerns about high-density development at the urban service area's edge and potential fire response delays. He emphasized that the area's isolation during interstate congestion could create emergency response challenges.

• 1:11:24 Richter returned to highlight fire response time and emergency preparedness concerns. He referenced a recent fire incident where a fire truck suffered mechanical failure and a distant aerial ladder truck had to be dispatched. He warned that high-density development at the perimeter could severely impact emergency response during peak traffic times.

David Booth (adjacent property resident) also spoke twice:

• 1:02:24 Booth opposed the zone change and raised buffer zone concerns. He argued that the EAR-1 zone was intended as a buffer between urban development and rural land, and that shifting the boundary to EAR-2 undermines the original planning intent and sets a problematic precedent.

• 1:14:20 Booth emphasized minimum density and planning integrity issues. He noted that the Expansion Area Master Plan included a minimum density of 403 units, which the project already exceeds. He argued that the original zoning boundary should be preserved to maintain planned land use transitions.

Contested Items

Notification of Greenbrier Neighborhood

A procedural dispute arose regarding notification practices for the Greenbrier neighborhood. Although the neighborhood fell outside the standard 2,400-foot notification radius, it had been the most active opponent to the proposal. Staff acknowledged an oversight in the notification process, confirming that notices were sent to only two neighborhood associations. This limited distribution created confusion and delayed awareness among affected parties in the Greenbrier area.

Fire Protection and Emergency Response

Significant concerns about fire protection and emergency response capabilities generated heated discussion during the meeting. Opponents raised specific safety concerns, citing a recent incident in which a fire truck failed to respond and a distant aerial ladder truck was required instead. The petitioner countered these concerns by noting that the fire department had already approved the plans and emphasized that the project would not generate through traffic. Despite the fire department's approval, the disagreement reflected broader community concerns about adequate emergency services for the proposed development.

Interpretation of Expansion Area Master Plan

A fundamental disagreement over planning interpretation divided the Planning Commission and Council. The central question concerned whether the entire Clark property should be treated as a single unit for purposes of density averaging. The applicant and staff argued for a unified interpretation of the property, contending it should be evaluated as one cohesive unit. Opponents insisted on maintaining the original boundary distinction between EAR-1 and EAR-2 zones as established in the 1996 master plan. This split interpretation resulted in a divided vote, with commissioners and council members unable to reach consensus on how the existing master plan should be applied to the current proposal.

Ordinance – Second Reading: 1028-15

The Urban County Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance 1028-15 to rezone 46.64 net acres (47.18 gross acres) located at 1551 Deer Haven Ln. from EAR-1 to EAR-2 zoning classification 6:35.

Staff Presentation

The Division of Planning presented findings in support of the rezoning. Staff determined that the proposed change aligned with both the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan.

Applicant's Position

North Forty Properties, LLC, the applicant, presented their case for the rezoning. They emphasized that the proposal was consistent with past development patterns in the area and stressed that the rezoning would not result in an increase in overall density.

Public Concerns

Opponents of the rezoning raised several concerns during the public hearing:

• Fire protection issues
• Buffer zone requirements and adequacy
• Procedural fairness questions

Key Speakers

The discussion included input from Bill Sallee, Dick Murphy, Steve Richter, and David Booth.

Outcome

Ordinance 1028-15 was approved on second reading.