Special Urban County Council Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council convened on February 19, 2008, at 6:00 PM in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Mayor Jim Gray presiding over the session. The meeting focused primarily on a single agenda item involving a proposed zoning change from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Expansion Area Residential-2 (EAR-2), which was ultimately denied by the Council. During the course of the meeting, the Council conducted 2 recorded votes and heard from 3 members of the public who provided comments on matters before the body. The session addressed the community's ongoing development and zoning considerations, with public input playing a role in the Council's deliberations on the proposed residential zoning modification.

Attendance

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council meeting on February 19, 2008, had strong attendance with twelve members present.

Present: • Jim Gray • Lane • McChord • Myers • Stinnett • Beard • Blues • Crosbie • Ellinger • Gorton • Henson • James

Absent: • Stevens • Blevins • DeCamp

No council members arrived late to the meeting. With twelve members present and three absent, the council had sufficient attendance to conduct official business.

Votes and Decisions

The Council conducted two related roll call votes regarding a zone map amendment application during the meeting.

Motion to Disapprove Zone Map Amendment 3:00:00 Council member Blues made a motion to disapprove the petitioner's application for a zone map amendment and to accept the Planning Commission's findings of November 29th, 2007. The motion was seconded by Gorton. The motion failed on a tie vote of 6-6.

Voting in favor of disapproval: • Stinnett • Blues • Gorton • Gray • Henson • James

Voting against disapproval: • Lane • McChord • Myers • Beard • Crosbie • Ellinger

Vote on Zone Change Ordinance 3:30:00 Following the failed motion to disapprove, the Council voted directly on the ordinance to approve the zone change. This vote also resulted in a 6-6 tie and failed.

Voting in favor of the zone change: • Lane • McChord • Myers • Beard • Crosbie • Ellinger

Voting against the zone change: • Stinnett • Blues • Gorton • Gray • Henson • James

The voting pattern was identical for both votes, with the same six council members consistently supporting the zone change and the same six opposing it. With both the motion to disapprove and the motion to approve failing due to tie votes, the zone map amendment application was effectively denied, as it did not receive the necessary majority approval to pass.

Public Comment

Three residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change and development plan.

Knox Van Nagell, representing the Fayette Alliance, addressed the Council regarding concerns about the preliminary development plan's inadequacy 1:30:00. Van Nagell argued that the plan failed to properly address critical environmental sensitivity issues, stormwater management, and sewer infrastructure concerns.

David Atcher followed with comments focused on flooding impacts from the proposed development 1:35:00. Atcher highlighted how the development would affect existing neighborhoods and emphasized that current flooding problems in the area remain unresolved. He expressed concern that the new development would exacerbate these existing drainage issues.

Josie Gergovich-Jones concluded the public comment period by raising concerns about infrastructure capacity and traffic impacts 1:40:00. Gergovich-Jones argued that the current infrastructure is inadequate to handle the increased traffic volume that would result from the proposed development.

All three speakers voiced opposition to the zone change, citing environmental, infrastructure, and public safety concerns. The comments focused on technical aspects of the development proposal, including stormwater management, flooding mitigation, sewer capacity, and traffic flow. No speakers expressed support for the proposed zone change during this public comment period.

Contested Items

The February 19, 2008 Council meeting featured one significant contested item that resulted in a split vote among council members.

Zone Change for 2020 Russell Cave Road

The council faced a divisive decision regarding a proposed zone change for the property located at 2020 Russell Cave Road. The item generated substantial debate, with council members evenly split on whether to approve the zoning modification.

The disagreement centered on community opposition to the proposed change, with residents and council members expressing concerns about the potential infrastructure impact and environmental consequences of the development. The split vote reflected the challenging balance between development interests and community concerns about how the zone change would affect the surrounding area.

The even division among council members demonstrated the complexity of the zoning issue, with valid arguments presented on both sides of the proposal. The infrastructure and environmental impact concerns raised by opponents appeared to carry significant weight in the deliberations, contributing to the lack of consensus among the governing body.

The outcome of this contested vote was not specified in the available information, but the split decision highlights the contentious nature of zoning decisions and their impact on local communities. Such evenly divided votes often require additional consideration or may result in the item being tabled for further review and community input.

Ordinance changing the zone from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Expansion Area Residential-2 (EAR-2)

10:00

The Council considered an ordinance to rezone 8.63 net acres located at 2020 Russell Cave Road from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Expansion Area Residential-2 (EAR-2). This agenda item II.1 involved a property owner's request to change the zoning designation to allow for residential development.

Bill Sallee, Jon Woodall, and Knox Van Nagell were key speakers during the discussion of this zoning change proposal. The request faced significant opposition from the Planning Commission, which had recommended disapproval of the rezoning application.

The Planning Commission's recommendation against the zoning change was based on two primary concerns. First, commissioners cited infrastructure issues that would need to be addressed before the property could support residential development. Second, they raised environmental impact concerns related to the proposed change from agricultural to residential use.

The Council ultimately denied the ordinance, following the Planning Commission's recommendation. The decision reflected the body's agreement with the concerns raised about the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support new residential development in this location, as well as potential environmental consequences of converting agricultural land to residential use.

The denial of this zoning change request demonstrates the Council's consideration of both technical infrastructure requirements and environmental factors when evaluating proposals to convert agricultural land to residential development. The 8.63-acre property at 2020 Russell Cave Road will retain its current Agricultural Urban zoning designation.