Story - The Meade County Messenger


Vol. 116, No. 49	December 3, 2008

Despite Court vote confusion, rezoning wins approval

By LARRY SEE JR.
Messenger Staff

During a special-called Nov. 24 meeting, members of the Meade County Fiscal Court overturned a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, clearing the way for a modular home.

The rezoning ends a long period when Court and Planning and Zoning Commission bandied the topic back and forth.

During an earlier Court meeting, members tabled action on the item until they had time to review the parcel.

During their Nov. 10 meeting, magistrates referred the matter back to the commission, citing the fact some commissioners allegedly might not have understood what they were voting on.

The parcel was split-zoned, with the portion bordering Pollock Road consisting of about five acres zoned residential and the remainder agricultural.

The applicant sought to change the zoning to residential to place a modular home on the parcel.

During the second review, which Planning and Zoning Administrator Charles (Tony) Coletta said was just a review of the previous materials, without another open hearing, the commission recommended the rezoning be denied, based on the “findings of fact.”

In response to questioning, Coletta admitted if the matter was denied, the applicant could request an agricultural zoning, which meant he could place whatever he wanted on the parcel.

Magistrate Steve Wardrip moved to rezone the parcel to R-2, going against the commission’s recommendation.

“We have messed with these people for three months or better,” he said. “A modular would be better than the old house which is standing there.”

Magistrate Tom Goddard, who supported the motion, agreed a modular would look better than the present structure.

“It will definitely look better than what’s in there now,” he said.

Magistrate Herbie Chism asked, if the motion was denied, if the applicant had to wait a year before another rezoning could be sought.

Coletta explained magistrates didn’t adopt any delayed provisions, thus the applicant could reapply for rezoning immediately.

The area is predominantly agricultural in nature, Coletta said, adding the commission felt the matter wasn’t believed to be spot zoning.

During the roll call vote, requested by Chism, both he and Magistrate Mark Hubbard cast dissenting votes.

“I am going to vote no. I don’t think we need to change what the planning commission looked at and reviewed. I am afraid we are going to start something here and it will eventually get out of hand,” he said.

Wardrip, in supporting the motion, said this rezoning was the way it should have been handled in the beginning.

Magistrate Randall Hardesty declined to vote, saying both families are “too close.” He voted on previous motions.

County Judge Executive Harry Craycroft really hated to go against the commission, but also thought it would be a matter of time before it was an agricultural zoning.

“If it were to become an A-2 (zoning) he could put what he wanted there,” Craycroft said. “With that under consideration, I vote yes.”

Magistrate Tony Staples was absent, thus the motion carried on a 3-2-1 vote.

Coletta asked for a vote repeat and stated the vote needed to be adopted by a majority of the entire governing body.

After a recess and review of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, it was decided sufficient information wasn’t available. A call the following day to Coletta’s office indicated the vote was approved.

Magistrates unanimously approved four other rezoning actions, dealing with parcels on Wildwood, Guston Road, Phillips Lane and Payneville Road.

Coletta also sought adoption of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, but magistrates balked.

“This does set the ground rules between rental agreements between landlords and tenants,” Coletta said. “It creates a level playing field and also gives the tenants a means of redress.”

Chism asked if he could receive a copy, prompting Coletta to respond he could, but it was 75 pages long. Chism wanted the ordinance for review.

“I think the (Fiscal Court) is not familiar with it,” Craycroft said. “I don’t think anyone is really opposed to it.”

Coletta said if the Court approved the act, the provisions shall be adopted in their entirety, without amendment and no other ordinance shall be enacted which relates to similar subjects, as stated in KRS 383.500.

Click Here to Go Back