Boone County Fiscal Court hears lengthy discussion about Comprehensive Plan

By Patricia A. Scheyer
NKyTribune reporter

Boone County Commissioner Chet Hand was given the chance last week to voice his changes to the 2045 Comprehensive plan during the regular Boone County Fiscal Court meeting, and he was ready.

“This is very important to me – these are our goals and objectives,” he said. “They are from the legislative body. We have delegated the responsibility to assemble these goals and objectives to the Planning Commission. We need to be very clear that our comments are to be considered, and if they are not translated into the elements of the map, or the narrative of the future land use map, that is not consistent with our strategic direction that we are providing.”

He went on to say that there are two things that are virtually impossible. The first is that the Planning Commission will get every project proposal correct. The second is that any project will satisfy one or more goals or objectives without also conflicting with one or more. He said if he looks at the 112 goals and objectives and the new proposals, he can see how one is in conflict with another.

“It bothers me that I never hear the staff present ‘here are the goals and objectives that this proposal conflicts with’,” he said. “They always tell us the ones they meet with. They need to have both sides of the equation to make good educated decisions.”

He stated that going forward he would like the planning commission to provide both sides of the equation to the court.

He said usually the recommendation of the Planning Commission leans one way or the other, and he thought they should articulate why the project should or should not be considered because of the goals and objectives it meets with and the goals and objectives it conflicts with.

“There has to be a metric assigned to it,” Hand stated. “Some sort of quantitative or qualitative metric assigned to it. As an example, if we consider any of the goals surrounding housing, and they say it is a ‘healthy mix’. What does that mean? If we can define that, then the staff report should say ‘this will bring you to within x percent of your target metric,’ or ‘it’s going to exceed your target metric by x percent.’ Otherwise their decision is simply based on how they feel at the moment, it has nothing to do with our actual condition, and how that condition applies to our goals and objectives.”

Another thing he thinks has to be changed is to take into consideration something that has been approved but not started. As an example, if the commission is looking at a traffic study, they should be able to take into consideration the fact that five other projects on the same road have had their traffic studies approved but those projects haven’t started yet.

Hand said projects have to be considered with a critical eye, because the comprehensive plan, the KRS, and the zoning regulations are intrinsically restrictive, not intrinsically permissive. He submitted that when the commission is considering a project that meets a goal or objective, as well as conflicts with a goal or objective, the goal that it conflicts with should be given the heavier weight in the decision. The purpose of creating zoning laws that are restrictive in the first place are ostensibly to prevent having things like a strip club next to a church.

“I am happy with the job the planning commission has done on these goals and objectives, but we have had a steep trajectory of growth over the last twenty to thirty years,” he pointed out, “and today we are running out of land in our county. It is the number one complaint we get from our citizens. I probably get phone calls from two to three people a week telling me they are lifelong residents of Boone County and they are leaving. They are leaving their family roots because this area is getting too dense, traffic is too bad, crime is too bad. I think we need a radically different approach to land use planning because of these concerns. I have a lot of concern about the current 15 member panel of the planning commission, that they will approach their responsibility with a different eye. I hope I am wrong, and they will approach these new goals and objectives and evaluate all the projects based on the new direction of the goals and objectives.”

Hand called attention to the words ‘healthy’ and ‘well designed’ and said those words don’t have any metrics assigned to them, and even though it says the professionals at the planning commission approved the words, he asserted that he is also a professional planner, he does this for a living, so as a professional himself he wants to have quantifiable metrics assigned to these words, so they meet a requirement for the definition of the words.

Judge Executive Gary Moore asked what words he wanted singled out, and wanted Hand to hurry along, but Hand said this is the only time he has to try and make the system right for the people of the county. He also stipulated that he asked if he could go to the Planning Commission and talk to them about his concerns so they could directly ask him questions, but his request was denied, and he didn’t know why.

“I don’t see objective decision-making in the staff reports today,” Hand said. “I see a very one sided approach in the staff reports because they don’t present both sides of the argument.”

He said it is also important to find root causes, and he again cited housing as an example.

“We know that housing is a major problem in the county right now, we need new housing,” he explained. “Is the root cause that we don’t have enough housing, or is the root cause that every square acre of land in our county is priced at industrial rates so the only housing they can bring in is high density apartment complexes, because the builders can’t afford to put single family homes on acreage because the pricing of the acreage is too high.”

Judge Moore stipulated that this is just Commissioner Hand’s opinion, and he did not agree with that opinion on pricing.

Planning Commission Director Kevin Costello stood up to say that the housing will look different as the time goes on, and that there are several single family homes scheduled to be built, but said there is a shortage of builders. He also disagreed with Hand, saying people are continuing to come to live in this area.

Hand said he is not calling for a cap on certain buildings or anything like that, but he feels that metrics should be included in any report so that it can be measured according to a fixed goal of what they want to achieve.

He brought up the wording of goals in the report of ‘unique environmental characteristics’ and ‘scenic areas,’ and he said those areas need to be delineated beforehand, and protected so that it doesn’t become reactionary when a project comes up that threatens those areas.

Hand suggested making a change in the protection of farmland in the county by saying the farmland is protected ‘all across the county’ so that any group or individual cannot come back in the future and contend that the meaning of protection of farmland only applies to the western part of the county.

The change was put to a vote of the commissioners and was unanimously confirmed.

“We need to try and retain our existing residents,” Hand emphasized. “Are we promoting new growth so much that we lose our older residents’ families and businesses?”

Hand said he wanted to add a phrase protecting the citizens already in the county. Judge Moore concurred, and they agreed on the statement that ‘the county should recognize the significant contributions of our existing citizens and businesses, and ensure new growth should not adversely impact our community and overall quality of life.’

“I have always said that if what we are doing is not protecting or adding to the quality of life of our community, then we shouldn’t be doing it,” Judge Moore said. “So I have no objection to this, and I would put it right up front. I think it is implied, but I kind of like having it right up front.”

Hand wanted to strike an objective that has private businesses helping with public projects, but Judge Moore disagreed. He pointed out several instances where larger companies have chipped in on projects that were vital to the community, and added that they might not have been able to do the projects if it hadn’t been for the companies.

Hand withdrew his request for that change.

Judge Moore told the commissioners that there will be another time to discuss the elements of the plan on October 17 at an 8:30 a.m. caucus meeting. For now, the changes will be incorporated in the plan and the first reading of an ordinance to confirm the plan will be on August 20, with a second reading on September 3.

The post Boone County Fiscal Court hears lengthy discussion about Comprehensive Plan appeared first on NKyTribune .