[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6695897,"mediaKeyId","2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217","parentId",2347187,"title","Bishop Place Phase 2 rezoning, development plan reviewed; county flags shared-driveway easement and utility notes","audioSeconds",2441,"startMs",2445000,"endMs",3734,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217&start=2445&end=3","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217/thumbnail_2445000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6695897/Oldham-County/Kentucky/Bishop-Place-Phase-2-rezoning-development-plan-reviewed-county-flags-shared-driveway-easement-and-utility-notes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695897-d140964412d78a6bbf5a81a844f972b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1777412014&Signature=aZaNW90Y0JQ3SL2gLsu4NeTy~dUnh8L3tLMN6R9PRDijcEDlRvV-N3u325kH-UC42BhWBkIFAGCjwWKDp6StVlgDlmANPe8RoM3bgCHOkLCi7g4Hxkt5RydNdVsslHuJ7cqy1801d4di8CcJ0uckBMV7ij1uxpj7Yz5X0nZPrXmEJ~ExnNO5DhK2DcqMsew35Hnt3h9OjQRqjM9QNnBBZzHFsNTsyWsF6Q8tXIl7Y2AuGfoPtMPHEnHxrRosr5QSvb8ETS3bp~p3~XsMgLTsdogtuq2dsVzww6RpR~KovGso978AQLLro1eLcX4zGHOSyjRel-uWdqkJPWQgpZpEmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oldham County","date","2025-02-19T19:32:56.383Z","article","Oldham County staff on Feb. 19 reviewed a zoning-map amendment and development plan for Bishop Place Apartments Phase 2 (TRC25-004), in which the applicant seeks to rezone a 0.75-acre former MSD building site from R-2A to R-4 and add one eight-unit apartment building. County staff and utilities flagged access-easement, utility-connection and sidewalk-connection issues that the applicant must address before the project advances to the planning commission and fiscal court.

Mike Swansburg, representing Bishop Place Apartments, introduced the proposal and said the project will consolidate the former MSD parcel with the existing Bishop Place Apartments to create a consistent R-4 zoning pattern across the site. Derek Triplett, the project engineer, said the revised plan removes the previously proposed Dawkins Road entrance and instead relies on the existing shared driveway used by the funeral home and the existing apartment complex. \"We are removing the proposed access point to Dawkins Road. We'll just be utilizing the existing access point that is the shared driveway that currently serves the development,\" Triplett said, and added that utilities are available and the project will reduce impervious surface on the parcel.

Staff and agency comments focused on several technical items:
- Planning staff (Anna Barge) asked the applicant to add standard plan legend symbols (including tree and steep slope symbols), note the existing building proposed for demolition and list any waivers or variances to be requested.
- KYTC (comments summarized by staff) recommended tying the Phase 2 access to the existing Phase 1 access and \"no secondary access to Dawkins\" because of horizontal and vertical curvature on Dawkins that affects sight distance; staff noted this approach appears to match the applicant’s revised plan.
- LaGrange Utilities Commission asked that the applicant submit plans showing water and sewer service connection locations for review, cap any existing sewer connections if the structure is demolished and terminate removed water services at the main if applicable.
- County staff (Jim Silliman) noted an existing detention basin on Phase 1 has not been placed in an easement yet; staff said an easement will be needed at some point though that is a separate project requirement.

County staff also raised an access-easement concern: with the revised plan routing all vehicular access through the existing shared driveway adjacent to a funeral home, staff said they wanted to see an access easement and maintenance agreement recorded if the development will rely on the funeral-home driveway for vehicle movements. \"If you're gonna put all your parking vehicles through the funeral home existing driveway, we'd want to see an access easement in place with some type of maintenance agreement,\" a county reviewer said.

The applicant said it will research whether an access agreement exists for the shared driveway and that topography, utilities and retaining walls limit other connectivity options; Triplett said the team examined flipping the building to tie in to Phase 1 but found it likely infeasible because of grades, utilities and retaining walls. \"There's a few reasons why we think that's gonna be very difficult, if not just implausible, topographic relation between 1 site to another … We've got the retaining wall on that backside for the Bishop Place apartment,\" Triplett said.

School staff told the TRC that eight additional two-bedroom units would be expected to generate roughly one net student serving LaGrange Elementary (referred to at the meeting), Oldham Middle and Oldham High. Fire and emergency responders present said they had no additional comments.

Public comment centered on traffic and procession impacts. Joelle Kerfoot, who manages and lives at the adjacent funeral home on West Jefferson, said her concerns focused on traffic patterns, visitation and funerals, processions and a proposed gas station across Dawkins Road. Kerfoot asked where to raise those concerns in future hearings; county staff advised that a zoning-map amendment must still go to the planning commission and then to fiscal court, both of which are public hearings and will include mailed notice to adjoining owners.

Discussion vs. decision: the TRC issued technical comments and requested documentation (service-connection plans, easement review and demolition notation) but took no zoning decision at the meeting. The applicant will return with requested documentation and any recorded access agreements before the rezoning and development plan proceed through the normal public hearings.

Next steps: applicant to verify any existing access agreement with the funeral home, supply utility-connection plans required by LaGrange Utilities, note demolition of the existing structure on plans, and pursue the zoning map amendment and development-plan hearings with the planning commission and fiscal court. The TRC record will include the agency comments for inclusion in those hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oldham County Technical Review Commission February 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Developer representatives presented a rezoning and development plan on Feb. 19 for Bishop Place Apartments Phase 2, proposing to convert a 0.75-acre former MSD building site to an eight-unit R-4 apartment building; county staff flagged the need for recorded access easements and utility-connection plans and said the TRC will not make a zoning decision.","taxTitle","Oldham County, Kentucky","taxId",72448,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6695902,"Townhomes Phase 2 seeks variances and stormwater permits; neighbors raise parking and private-road safety concerns",1586,960000,2546000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217&start=960&end=2546","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217/thumbnail_960000.jpg","/articles/6695902/Oldham-County/Kentucky/Townhomes-Phase-2-seeks-variances-and-stormwater-permits-neighbors-raise-parking-and-private-road-safety-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695902-8ee1db793b182a431177a29167328370/orig.mp4?Expires=1777412014&Signature=eJiXmQoyZm9NSMujfPakZQkqMn1ScpEvOczG5o8fx9scc6W8va3RQn5EWvv4Mv9tl5ZqZqKUeG7AUq0985ONgmdIdzX7cVq-l90avxGSBMeX4dSOfGeAcTq8rKqduXsSe5pAh~KHrL9QhCacXt6AhrXHEIVdZu5DOQ~rKivyQRowJ07Rn~TPJYkNoStUNIBy0AfM9pauLuYwDs1Uh1geek3aA6joPlNQdGI3qgc21slI24udKH5unQ9ADY7k47~nCVUxolpvDDvfVnWHdQ6fAwq4xzBLmL~M~ezhoAB1ELFy9sVkCx~ZYFwWwm2AIc4uFBMGRphdcEN4nOKwBw9eqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Oldham County planners on Feb. 19 reviewed a development plan for Oldham County Townhomes Phase 2 (TRC25-002), a proposed eight-unit addition on Victory Court Lane, and told the applicant the project will require variances and waivers, stormwater permitting and a landscape plan. Neighbors raised technical concerns including lot coverage, standing water at the construction site, parking and the safety and maintenance status of a privately owned access road.

Emily Estes of Heritage Engineering, representing the Sprigler Company, presented the Phase 2 development plan and said the 8-unit proposal would include a detention basin running along the rear of Phase 1 and Phase 2, sanitary sewer tie-in to the Victory Court extension and requests for a landscaping variance and a rear-yard setback variance because of the lot’s irregular shape. \"With this phase 2 we are including storm water control which is a detention basin that will run along the rear of the property,\" Estes said.

Planning staff outlined items the applicant must address before building permits can be issued. Case manager John Hahn requested a legend on final plan submissions, notation of steep slopes over 30 degrees or a statement that none exist, acreage and square footage in the street right-of-way area, utility locations and easement notation, location of substantial trees (24\" DBH or greater) or a note that none exist, fire hydrant locations, and an indicated size and location for required common open space. Hahn also reminded the applicant that the rear-yard setback variance must be heard by the Oldham County Board of Adjustments and the waiver from the perimeter landscape-buffer requirement would be heard by the Oldham County Planning Commission.

Stormwater and erosion-control requirements were emphasized by Jim Silliman, who told the applicant that because the combined development now exceeds one acre the project must obtain the Oldham County Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit and a state Division of Water KYR-10 permit. Silliman reviewed the proposed detention-basin design and recommended a low-flow concrete channel for outlet control if the basin is shallow and flat; he said infiltration designs could be accepted if supported by appropriate design calculations. \"One concern we have is the shallow slope, the flat nature of the area. That detention basin, we would recommend it have a low flow channel concrete through to get the water out properly,\" Silliman said.

Utility letters noted service capacity: Louisville Water said infrastructure is present nearby but a new service application is required; MSD (sewer) indicated capacity in the area. The county also advised the applicant to prepare a landscape plan for staff review before a building permit is issued.

School-district calculations read at the meeting show Phase 2’s eight units would be expected to generate roughly one net student, with serving campuses identified as Harmony Elementary, North Oldham Middle and North Oldham High; staff reported a final district capacity rating of about 84.43 percent when this development is included.

Public attendees raised multiple technical concerns. Adjoining owner Kathy Pyle asked whether the project meets the R-4 50 percent lot-coverage rule; planning staff responded that the submitted plans show a proposed building square footage of 20,432 for a lot of approximately 1.14 acres, and that the building coverage is below 50 percent. Pyle also flagged Unit 16’s proposed 14-foot setback from an adjoining property and asked how stormwater and standing water during construction will be addressed; staff and stormwater reviewers said basin design and drainage calculations must address those concerns.

Other neighbors, including Don Mattern (1640 Victory Court) and James Trimpe (1664 Victory Court), expressed concerns about adding multiple driveways and cars onto Victory Court Lane, a privately owned road. County staff said the county cannot perform repairs on a private road and cannot issue public-road encroachment permits for private drives; driveway encroachment permits apply only to public roads. Planning staff advised that users will be notified when variance and waiver hearings are scheduled: the Board of Adjustments usually meets the third Thursday of each month and the Planning Commission meets the fourth Tuesday.

Discussion vs. decision: TRC comments are advisory technical reviews. County staff and agencies required additional submittals (stormwater permit, KYR-10 permit, landscape plan, plan notation changes) but the TRC took no final action at the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant must revise plans to address the checklist items, submit required stormwater and state permits and apply for a rear-yard setback variance (Board of Adjustments) and a landscape-buffer waiver (Planning Commission). Adjoining-property owners will receive mailed notice of those hearings when the cases are scheduled.","Oldham County planners reviewed a Phase 2 development plan on Feb. 19 for eight townhomes on Victory Court Lane and told the applicant it will need a rear-yard setback variance, a waiver of the perimeter landscape buffer, an approved county stormwater permit and a state KYR-10 permit; neighbors raised lot-coverage, standing-water and private-road safety concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6695905,"TRC hears Pine Grove continuation; agencies flag karst, traffic study and water-main needs",861,228000,1089000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217&start=228&end=1089","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347187-8ea47207dfca8670f5a8b5acb935c217/thumbnail_228000.jpg","/articles/6695905/Oldham-County/Kentucky/TRC-hears-Pine-Grove-continuation-agencies-flag-karst-traffic-study-and-water-main-needs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695905-fb617ef4684aaf0407c6362780f077cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1777412014&Signature=mO~TQLmhk2fBGUh4eSew7gRayHdLfnwr-bfEAb1Hd~nPcOOjnu3lOXE9cC5uYGNYvcUCiowCuJERXrVYThEddb1ioVsdsSg3-CWZbPBx3jaZ~-AfRsk6ShUzMZRpahMfgDLAE6O9lgAabWTeXCck5HtwXBJx1GP5uza-ltCKh3T-xRgBRQZxDgWbL1jT3HYjbl5CkinSawyVGqSg~4AmEEtDB-wt5IZg5OX58bRIKeMgCgAaQID0fEFrLJ~JocYelH9nVlj-cXwLEnnqcg5ylglTb6yjAF3w8iJA6~EoGpN5gGQgJEIR7UP-7QJwAxpMQ772n9nHc8uwmzT-4kHqXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Oldham County Technical Review Committee on Feb. 19 heard a continued review of Pine Grove Subdivision (TRC25-003), during which the applicant and county staff clarified neighborhood notification steps and several technical agency requirements but no formal action was taken.

The continuation, presented by Mike Swansburg on behalf of Triple Springs Partners LLC, was held so the developer could document additional neighbor notice after concerns at the Jan. 15 meeting. \"The developer in this case has gone back at the request of both the committee and the concerned parties in this case to make sure that we complied with that,\" Swansburg said, noting the developer sent updated notifications to adjoining owners.

County senior planner Anna Barge and other agency representatives summarized outstanding technical items the applicant must address before the project advances to the planning commission. Barge asked that plans clearly indicate which features will remain and which will be removed and that the applicant coordinate road naming with the county GIS manager. Health department comments, read into the record, said a preliminary soil evaluation found soils \"entirely provisionally suitable for conventional subsurface discharge septic system,\" noting silty loam to silty clay loam soil types and adequate depths for lateral field installation.

County staff and outside agencies raised several items the applicant must still resolve or provide documentation for:
- Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC): staff said a traffic-impact study for the development is pending; the county is \"awaiting receipt of a traffic impact study for this development to determine whether any highway improvements, i.e., turn lanes, will be necessary.\" No highway improvements were recommended yet because the study is not submitted.
- U.S. Army Corps/Water quality permits: in response to a public question, a county representative confirmed that Section 404 (Army Corps) and Section 401 (state water quality certification) permits would be required if later design work shows impacts to jurisdictional streams.
- Louisville Water: the utility reported an existing nearby 8-inch water main in the North Oldham pressure zone (noted in the record as \"North Oldham 8 40\"). Louisville Water’s comments note that a water-main extension along Kentucky 329 from Constantine Drive to the development entrance \"will be required to serve the development\" and that main sizing and supply plans must be coordinated with Louisville Water’s engineering distribution/extensions department.

County planning staff also discussed geologic constraints raised at the earlier meeting. A county official reported that Kentucky Geological Survey mapping identifies the area as \"an intense karst area\" and shows three mapped sinkholes north of the proposed development. The county reminded the applicant that Oldham County Subdivision Regulations require sinkholes observed on site to be shown on the record plat.

School-division comments were provided by a county school representative, who said the project’s estimated 93 housing units would generate about 12 students under the county’s current calculator (0.128 students per unit). The representative said the serving campuses would be Goshen, North Oldham Middle and North Oldham High and reported a final available capacity rating of roughly 80.18 percent; with other approved developments included the campus area capacity rises to about 83.61 percent. The representative noted the county’s phasing policy would allow 35 units per year under the current agreement.

Public comment during the TRC was limited to technical questions. Mark Fackler, a nearby resident, asked whether the Army Corps (404) and state (401) permits would be required; county staff confirmed they would be required only if impacts to jurisdictional waters are found during final design.

Discussion vs. decision: the TRC reiterated that it takes no decisions at this meeting stage; the committee’s role is to identify technical issues and open items for the applicant to address. Staff and agency comments were incorporated into the record for follow-up by the applicant. If the applicant proceeds to a planning-commission hearing, adjoining owners will receive notice by mail and notices will also be posted on the county website and in the local newspaper.

Next steps: the developer said it will incorporate prior TRC comments by reference and supply the outstanding studies and plan revisions (traffic study, water-main coordination, sinkhole mapping and the plan notation changes) before scheduling the planning-commission hearing. No vote or formal action occurred at the TRC meeting.","The Oldham County Technical Review Committee on Feb. 19 reviewed a continued preliminary plan for Pine Grove Subdivision (TRC25-003). County staff and outside agencies identified outstanding technical items — karst features to note on the plat, a pending traffic-impact study and a Louisville Water main-extension requirement — but the TRC made no formal decision at the meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bishop Place Phase 2 rezoning, development plan reviewed; county flags shared-driveway easement and utility notes

Townhomes Phase 2 seeks variances and stormwater permits; neighbors raise parking and private-road safety concerns

TRC hears Pine Grove continuation; agencies flag karst, traffic study and water-main needs