[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6501335,"mediaKeyId","5604112-8105c182b0043bd2431312ed5353e925","parentId",5604112,"title","Fiscal court approves rezoning for Chateau Cerise (Cherry House) property, with binding restrictions","audioSeconds",3368,"startMs",9020000,"endMs",12388000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5604112-8105c182b0043bd2431312ed5353e925&start=9020&end=12388","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5604112-8105c182b0043bd2431312ed5353e925/thumbnail_9020000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6501335/Oldham-County/Kentucky/Fiscal-court-approves-rezoning-for-Chateau-Cerise-Cherry-House-property-with-binding-restrictions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6501335-bb1b78c62f11f0a9ddc10ab19308d7ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771031220&Signature=UYc0LDRjgRDgDkzFFF9Mi-tXc2Nvyzu73~rAK-lVCF-p2hDmYFhGhyfoqXnWtXuZpjy5JE8fYof79iRgW-GKo~DAgBFAGvkKfSou2z4TyHoo4ARJn14BZcd4iv1eseVrRDpuztya0hiTE2RAgEO6mwUuwsabH-ZiJLK3HzaEbEs9ie4GokQZNmpvo80JU-BBY9SFVx~-vuwNgIXKFzeuHPgucg8J1lzAltY2jtC2EexsTHrGLjRdSvS66uztPytUdQ5UcDY71vUMyy4LXYM1y6vh6LnPbDUuuuzr5a4f7WeegGzszrgICf9kX5bW1pGs8d7kcKoPjrd6K6IKHxgfAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oldham County","date","2025-08-19T22:56:01.277Z","article","Oldham County Fiscal Court approved a zoning map amendment on Aug. 19 to reclassify 20.61 acres at 2419 South Highway 53 — the site of the former Cherry House furniture operation — from C‑1 (Local Business District) to C‑4 (Highway Service District), with seven binding elements the applicant agreed to during neighborhood outreach.

The planning and zoning staff recommended approval, and the fiscal court voted to adopt the change, 7–2. Magistrate Jeffreys moved to approve the rezoning with the binding elements; the motion passed on roll call.

What the change allows and what was limited

The applicant (Chateau Cerise, the owners of the former Cherry House) asked for C‑4 so the existing large warehouse and showroom buildings on the property can be leased for commercial uses similar to those historically conducted on site. Owner Steve Whitehouse told the court the furniture business once generated large truck and customer volumes and the owners are seeking tenants that can use the existing buildings “as they sit” without major new construction.

In response to neighborhood concerns, the applicant and staff incorporated binding elements recommended by the planning commission. The key, binding limitations include:

- Exclusion of specific uses from the C‑4 allowance (the applicant and staff marked a list of conditional and permitted uses that will not be permitted on the parcel). Examples cited in the public record included adult‑entertainment uses and methadone or certain inpatient psychiatric or addiction clinics. (The final ordinance lists the full excluded uses.)
- A requirement that any proposed major change in traffic generation, building size, or parking must be reviewed by the county planning and engineering staff (and may require additional review or conditions).
- A commitment that no commercial access will be permitted from the parcel to Zalesmith Road (access will remain from Highway 53), a point the applicant agreed to at neighborhood meetings.

Why the court approved it

County planning staff told the court the parcel had a long history of commercial use dating to the 1970s and that the proposed C‑4 classification is consistent with nearby highway‑oriented commercial zoning patterns along the South 53 corridor. Staff said the requested change is intended to allow leasing of existing buildings — especially the large warehouse — for uses that are compatible with historic operations and the county’s land‑use framework.

Opposition and concerns

One nearby resident raised concerns that C‑4 zoning adjacent to residential areas could enable future owners to propose higher‑intensity uses that would increase traffic on Highway 53. Planning staff and the applicant responded that the binding elements and the county’s site‑plan review process would require review of any use that materially increased traffic, building footprint or parking; conditional uses would still require Board of Adjustments review.

Votes and next steps

The fiscal court approved the rezoning 7–2 with the binding elements recommended by the planning commission incorporated into the approval. County staff will amend the zoning map and the clerk will publish the ordinance with the condition list as adopted. Any tenant or new use that proposes changes beyond the binding elements will be required to seek planning review and, where applicable, conditional‑use approval.

Technical and background details

- Property: 2419 South Highway 53, LaGrange (20.61 acres).
- Current zoning: C‑1 (Local Business District). Proposed zoning: C‑4 (Highway Service District).
- Binding elements: list of excluded uses (as filed with planning staff), prohibition of commercial access to Zalesmith Road, and requirement that any major change in traffic, parking or building footprint be reviewed by planning and the county engineer and comply with current regulations.

Magistrates and staff noted that the approval does not remove review safeguards: conditional uses and substantial building changes will still require further planning review and, where applicable, Board of Adjustments procedures.

Votes at a glance

Zoning map amendment KOC‑205‑920‑511 (2419 S. Highway 53) — Rezoning from C‑1 to C‑4, with seven binding elements — Passed 7–2 (Motion: Magistrate Jeffreys; second: recorded). Yes: Magistrates Likens, Tice, Woosley, Jeffreys, Hounds, Dye, Logsdon. No: Magistrate Hawkins and 1 other magistrate recorded as no. (Clerk’s roll call recorded motion carries 7 to 2.)

Ending note

The owners said they plan to lease the existing buildings rather than redevelop the site; the adopted binding elements are intended to limit uses the neighborhood and the owners considered incompatible while allowing leasing of the large warehouse and showroom spaces. Any future tenant proposing a use that increases traffic, requires new access locations, or expands building footprints will face a planning review process and any required approvals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oldham County Fiscal Court August 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Oldham County Fiscal Court on Aug. 19 approved a zoning map amendment that rezones 20.61 acres at 2419 S. Highway 53 from C‑1 to C‑4 with binding elements that exclude certain uses and require review of major changes.","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},6501340,"Oldham County fiscal court votes to end county maintenance of Oregon Creek Farm roads after months of debate",2219,1349000,3568000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5604112-8105c182b0043bd2431312ed5353e925&start=1349&end=3568","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5604112-8105c182b0043bd2431312ed5353e925/thumbnail_1349000.jpg","/articles/6501340/Oldham-County/Kentucky/Oldham-County-fiscal-court-votes-to-end-county-maintenance-of-Oregon-Creek-Farm-roads-after-months-of-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6501340-1b29119675ff4d4a4b00fa8390561b89/orig.mp4?Expires=1771031220&Signature=foNJvbCCU0uWvOeM7md3lIaJvxxa6WtVPwQg0-E1jhi~615J1q-NnberBHJBJDLlckDdvL03a-geNWuQZheOqW6-I1kWu2-NdIb0qMQVS9cJHyUfsF52gehrNmcxb-39pTFxap~pch6Y3RTViY~QdOlDvTZygxeD0YW-~kg9o7CgkmbBjV6bHkHlcQ8oaFJFAzsaw1XADQpQC3z~p81CVCPsDEAwk3puq02hnrH3mYsHiFmb0gyPDwGUKio9yy96SDaTl80wwpB-Bk0Mc8XdOEbq1XDweGDzA9WJYdvtT34-QKyBHto0A3a0W-iiskD3Ncp7y-zcPzNZY2Y9fNGHzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Oldham County Fiscal Court voted 8–1 on Aug. 19 to adopt a resolution that removes most streets in the Oregon Creek Farm subdivision from the county road maintenance system, following an extended public-comment period and presentations from county staff.

The resolution, numbered 01062625, directs the county road department to stop maintaining Ridge Road (except a 1,265-linear-foot paved portion already in the county system), Oregon Circle, Hillveil Road, Springveil Circle and Ridgeway Circle in Oregon Creek Farm. Magistrate Jeffreys moved for the court to adopt the resolution; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with Magistrate Woosley the only member voting no.

The vote came after residents of Oregon Creek Farm pressed the court to continue maintenance, citing emergency access, mail delivery, school buses and property values. Dozens of residents spoke during public comment. “We expect emergency responders to have access to our homes,” said Tom Cray, a Ridge Road resident. “Discontinuance of maintenance of these roads … will endanger the safety and health of everyone that lives up there.”

Why the court acted now

County engineering staff and the court’s attorney told the fiscal court that state law limits the county’s ability to spend general tax dollars to maintain roads that are not formally accepted into the county road system and that were not constructed to current county standards. County Attorney Barry Baxter told the court that his research produced “no evidence that would indicate that these roads had ever been accepted into the county system.” County Engineer Jim Silliman presented available historical records and cost estimates.

Silliman said planning records show the subdivision’s roads were built as gravel with roughly 7 inches of aggregate based on the construction plans on file and that planning-commission minutes show a 1972 request to build the roads without asphalt. The county has records of a 2004 maintenance agreement under which residents paid a fee (about $125 per lot per year) and the county did maintenance; that agreement, Silliman said, did not equate to formal acceptance of the roads into the county road system under KRS provisions cited by staff.

Costs and alternatives

Silliman presented preliminary engineering estimates for bringing the roads up to current county standards (roughly 5 inches of asphalt on 9 inches of dense-graded aggregate and drainage improvements). Those preliminary numbers put a full reconstruction cost in excess of $1,500,000 and more realistically over $2,000,000 when drainage and shoulders are included. Narrower alternatives — paving over the existing gravel surface at the existing width — were estimated at about $500,000; a lower-cost stabilizing treatment with cement followed by an asphalt cap was roughly $150,000. Silliman cautioned these were preliminary, block-level budget numbers and did not include all potential utility or right-of-way work.

County spending and resident fees

Residents and several magistrates disputed the county’s current accounting for prior maintenance spending and for fees collected. Several residents said the neighborhood had paid roughly $125 per lot a year (about $7,500 annually for roughly 57 lots) under the county’s 2004 agreement; the Road Department reported spending between $30,000 and $38,000 in recent years on maintenance there. Residents asked for accounting of those funds; clerical and minute records referenced during discussion showed gaps that county staff said they were still investigating.

Legal limits and next steps

County Attorney Baxter told the court the applicable statutes require that a road be built to county standards to be formally accepted into the county road system and that the fiscal court has no record of a formal acceptance. He said a county-maintenance-only agreement that existed in 2004 “did not comply with the statute at the time” and that the current statutory scheme limits the county’s ability to continue the long-term expenditure of public funds on roads that do not meet county standards.

Magistrates and residents urged the county to identify practical options for residents. Several magistrates proposed forming a committee to study lower “legacy” or gravel-road standards, potential frontage-based assessments, tax‑roll financing, or bonding mechanisms that would allow reconstruction costs to be assessed to the subdivision rather than charged to general county taxpayers. Some magistrates said those legal and financing options may require changes in state law or detailed legal review. The court voted to adopt the resolution but multiple members directed staff to convene a group with residents and county technical staff to pursue potential remedies and funding paths.

Public safety and equity concerns

Residents, repeatedly during the public comment period, described occasions when mail, school buses and emergency vehicles could not traverse the roads in poor weather and urged the court to continue maintenance. “We depend on those roads just to conduct life and receive county services,” said Christie Lafever, who cited subdivision-record and planning-commission rules. Several residents described lost or delayed emergency responses and long-term anxiety about mortgages, resale and insurance.

Court action and what it means

The resolution becomes effective on passage and removes county maintenance responsibility for the named streets, except the 1,265-foot paved portion noted in the resolution. The court voted 8–1 to adopt Resolution 01062625; Magistrate Woosley cast the lone dissent. Court members said they will stop further county-funded maintenance and will form a committee to examine alternatives to the residents. Several magistrates said they intend to pursue legal and financial options to assist residents if possible, but they made clear the county will no longer continue the existing maintenance arrangement under current statutes.

What remains unresolved

Residents asked for detailed accounting of prior collections and for a clear timetable for a citizens‑county committee. County staff said they would supply documentation and work with residents. Any change that would place the roads on the county maintenance system would require engineering upgrades to county standards or a legally permitted alternative financing mechanism — neither of which is automatic.

Votes at a glance

Resolution 01062625 — “To suspend county maintenance of roads in the county maintenance system within the Oregon Creek Farm subdivision” — Passed, 8–1 (Motion: Magistrate Jeffreys; second: recorded). Yes: Magistrates Jeffreys, Tice, Lykins, Hounds, Dye, Hawkins, Logsdon and Judge David Vogel. No: Magistrate Woosley.

Ending note

Magistrates said they will convene a committee of residents, road‑department staff, the county engineer and the county attorney to explore funding and technical options and report back to the fiscal court. The committee’s work and any future staff proposals will determine whether the roads can be upgraded and, if so, how the costs could be apportioned.","After hours of public comment and analysis from county staff, Oldham County Fiscal Court voted 8–1 on Aug. 19 to adopt Resolution 01062625, ending county maintenance of most roads in Oregon Creek Farm subdivision while leaving a short paved segment under county care.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fiscal court approves rezoning for Chateau Cerise (Cherry House) property, with binding restrictions

Oldham County fiscal court votes to end county maintenance of Oregon Creek Farm roads after months of debate