By Melody Bailiff
University of Kentucky School of Journalism and
Telecommunications
Longstanding tensions between Woodford County preservationists and developers are
illustrated by a lawsuit filed by the Woodford Coalition and the Pisgah
Historic Association against a new zoning rule that allows commercial activity
in agricultural areas.
The
suit, filed against the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Woodford County Fiscal Court and the Versailles City Council,
echoes the plaintiffs’ arguments against the bodies’ approval of two amendments
to the county zoning ordinance.
The
amendments added definitions of “tourist destination” and “tourist destination
expanded,” to the ordinance. These
definitions allow certain properties in the Agricultural (A-1) District and Heavy Industrial (I-2)
zones to open restaurants, provide public tours, and hold special
events with music.
The
proposal was favored by the CastlePost, a luxury bed-and-breakfast
east of Versailles, in the A-1 zone.
The
suit, filed March 14, alleges that the amendments are special legislation for
the CastlePost, in violation of the Kentucky Constitution, and that they
conflict with the county's Comprehensive Plan.
The
Planning Commission, in a response filed March 27, generally denied the
lawsuit's allegations.
As the
amendments were approved by each body, preservationists spoke against them.
They
argued the definitions were not appropriately phrased to protect the A-1 zone.
In the lawsuit, they argue that the lack of protection will leave residential
property in this area susceptible to urban development.
The suit
contends that the amendments’ definition of “landmark” as “any site, building
structure, or natural feature that has visual, historic or cultural
significance” is “unconstitutionally vague in that the amendment for not
adequately defining 'landmark' such that an ordinary person could determine
what locations were within the statutory definition.”
The
lawsuit argues that the vagueness would allow “arbitrary or discriminatory
decision making.”
It also
argues that a more general law, more agreeable with the Comprehensive Plan,
could be passed to protect horse farms in the A-1 District.
Generally,
the plaintiffs seek to maintain a separation of urban activities from rural
activities, a recurring theme of the county’s 40-year battle between
preservationists and developers.
They
seek a “declaration of rights ... that the action by the Planning Commission,
the Fiscal Court and the City Council of Versailles ... was illegal and
improper where it was contrary to the existing Kentucky law, Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance.”
The
Midway City Council has opted to not pass the amendments, since they do not
affect any areas of the city. All areas of Midway that could possibly be affect
by the amendments fall short of the 30-acre minimum size tract required by the
amendments. For more background, click here.
The suit
says the amendments conflct with the mission of Midway and Versailles to aid in
the advancement of each city’s restaurant offerings, as laid out in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The suit
contends that “every existing home (or barn) in Woodford County on at least 30
acres ... now has the right to operate a restaurant of up to 75 seats ...
without the need for any further Planning Commission ... or Agricultural
Advisory Review Committee review and approval.”
One of
the commission's justifications in approving the amendments was that the
Comprehensive Plan says “The legislative bodies and appointed agencies of
Woodford County should take heed of the public demand for more shopping and
dining options and accommodate such projects.”
The
lawsuit argues that is a misinterpretation of those goals, which the suit says
is applicable to only urban areas, not to agricultural areas.
The suit
says the Comprehensive Plan states the that commercial use of land outside the
Versailles and Midway urban areas would generally not be allowed under zoning
regulations, and those areas is where retail and dining establishments are to
be located.
The
commission's response generally denied that allegation and the others in the
suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment