Rural Land Management Board

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Rural Land Management Board convened at 3:02 PM on March 25, 2026, with Gloria presiding over the session. The board worked through five agenda items during the meeting, covering a range of topics including the approval of meeting minutes, a closed session for real property interest discussion, housing and infrastructure requests, a cell tower application on Royster Road, and urban service boundary concerns. All five agenda items were approved by the board. Over the course of the meeting, members took a total of 10 votes, and no public comments were heard.

Attendance

The following individuals were recorded for the Board meeting on March 25, 2026.

Present (16): Brian Jones, Margaret Grays, Phil Myer, Robert James, Sean Denny, Tyler Martin, Phil Hager, Tracy Jones, Jim Coleman, Hannah Emig, Joanna, Mary Quinn, Lena, Liz Sheehan, Olivia, and Steven Howard.

Absent (2): Christine Stanley and Will Mayer.

Late: None.

Votes and Decisions

The Board took ten votes during the March 25, 2026 meeting, all of which passed unanimously.

• Approval of February 25th minutes — Moved by Margaret, seconded by Phil. Passed unanimously. 6:39

• Enter closed session pursuant to KRS 61-801B — Moved by Robert, seconded by Jim Coleman. Passed unanimously. 8:15

• Authorize an offer for small farm 1, 20, 25 — Moved by Robert. Passed unanimously. 29:05

• Authorize an offer on PDR farm 1, 20, 25 — Moved by Jim Coleman, seconded by Phil Meyer. Passed unanimously. 30:07

• Authorize the PDR initial ranking — Moved by Margaret. Passed unanimously with one abstention. 31:07

• Approval for farm 36-2002 housing and infrastructure request — Moved by Jim Coleman. Passed unanimously. 51:13

• Approval for farm 35-2006 housing and infrastructure request — Seconded by Robert. Passed unanimously. 56:34

• Approval for farm 1-2009 housing and infrastructure request — Moved by Margaret, seconded by Jim Coleman. Passed unanimously. 1:03:22

• Send a letter to the Planning Commission regarding cell tower concerns — Moved by Margaret, seconded by Jim Coleman. Passed unanimously. 1:29:48

• Send a letter to council members regarding urban service boundary concerns — Moved by Margaret, seconded by Phil. Passed unanimously. 1:42:08

No roll call votes were recorded; all decisions were made by unanimous voice vote. The PDR initial ranking vote was the only action that included an abstention.

Contested Items

Two items generated notable opposition during the March 25, 2026 Board meeting, drawing concern from both community members and board members.

Cell Tower Application on Royster Road

A proposed cell tower on Royster Road drew significant pushback from community members and board members alike. The central concerns focused on the potential impact to property values and scenic views in the area. No additional details regarding the specific applicant, the outcome of any vote, or the ultimate disposition of the application are reflected in the available meeting record.

Urban Service Boundary and Mill Ridge Farm Pump Station

The board also raised concerns about a potential pump station proposed in connection with Mill Ridge Farm. The core issue was not the pump station itself in isolation, but rather the precedent its approval could set for expanding the urban service boundary. Board members expressed apprehension that moving forward with the pump station could open the door to broader development beyond the established boundary. The available record does not indicate a final vote or resolution on this matter.

Both items reflect ongoing tensions between development proposals and community and board priorities around land use, infrastructure, and the preservation of existing boundaries and character.

Approval of February 25th minutes

6:39

The board took up the approval of the minutes from the February 25th meeting. Gloria led the discussion on this item, moving to approve the minutes as presented.

• Outcome: The minutes from the February 25th meeting were approved.

Closed Session for Real Property Interest Discussion

8:15

The board moved to enter a closed session to discuss the acquisition of a real property interest. Gloria presented the motion to convene in closed session for this purpose, and the board approved the motion to proceed.

No additional details regarding the specific property, location, or terms of the potential acquisition are available from the public portion of the meeting, as the substance of the discussion took place in closed session.

Housing and infrastructure requests

51:13

The board reviewed housing and infrastructure requests submitted for several farms, including farm 36-2002, farm 35-2006, and farm 1-2009. Key speakers during this agenda item were Beth and Greg Pageant.

The board discussed the requests as presented and ultimately approved them.

*Note: The available data for this agenda item is limited. Readers seeking fuller detail on what was presented, any concerns raised, or the specifics of each farm's request are encouraged to consult the meeting video at the timestamp above or the official meeting minutes.*

Cell tower application on Royster Road

1:14:18

The board discussed a cell tower application on Royster Road, with key speakers including Jim Coleman and Tracy.

The discussion centered on the application's potential impact on PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) parcels in the area. Board members raised concerns about how the proposed cell tower could affect these protected parcels, and the board debated how best to communicate those concerns to the appropriate decision-making body.

As an outcome of the discussion, the board approved sending a letter to the Planning Commission expressing its concerns about the cell tower application's impact on PDR parcels.

Urban service boundary concerns

1:42:08

The board held a discussion regarding concerns about the urban service boundary, focusing on a potential pump station on Mill Ridge Farm and its implications for where that boundary is drawn.

Key speakers in this discussion were Margaret and Phil. The conversation centered on what the installation of a pump station at Mill Ridge Farm could mean for the urban service boundary — a designation that typically determines which areas are eligible to receive public utilities and infrastructure services.

While the structured record does not detail the specific arguments each speaker advanced, the discussion was framed around the broader policy implications of allowing infrastructure such as a pump station in that location, and whether doing so could effectively extend or alter the urban service boundary in ways the board needed to consider.

The item was ultimately approved by the board.