The Winchester-Clark County Fiscal Court voted to send a proposed zoning text amendment addressing first-floor residential uses in the B‑2 downtown business district back to the planning commission for further review and clarification, and it approved the first reading of a separate ordinance that updates development-plan approval procedures to align with state law.

The zoning-text amendment under review would permit residential dwelling units on the First Floor of buildings in the B‑2 district only if the residential unit is located behind a commercial/professional storefront and the storefront facade remains unchanged; the draft language included a provision that the front commercial/professional unit must be either a minimum of 200 square feet or 50% of the total floor area, whichever is greater. Planning staff said the 50% figure was developed through public hearings and is intended as a compromise to preserve downtown storefront character while allowing some interior residential reuse.

During discussion several magistrates raised concerns about grandfathered existing residential uses, how the ordinance would treat upper-floor dwellings, the legal reach of zoning to restrict less‑intensive uses, and whether the desired storefront preservation might be better enforced through existing design standards and certificate-of-occupancy procedures rather than by limiting dwellings in code text. A motion to return the proposed amendment to the planning commission for revisions and for staff to provide model language and comparative examples from other communities carried by voice vote.

Separately, the court approved first reading of a separate zoning text amendment implementing KRS Chapter 100.275 provisions on development plans and subdivision plats. Planning staff said the state statute (chapter 100.275) intends that development plans and subdivision plats that meet the ordinance's objective or subjective standards may be approved by staff, which can speed routine approvals; when discretion or variances are required, the approving authority would be a public board—the board of adjustments or the planning commission—so public hearings and appeals remain available in those cases. Magistrates asked staff to insert clearer appeal and transparency language into the draft so affected neighbors would know where and how to file appeals rather than having to locate a separate statutory chapter.

The court's action sent the first-floor residential language back to planning and adopted first reading of the development-plan ordinance with a direction to add clearer appeals language before second reading. No final zoning changes were adopted at the meeting; planning staff will return with revised language that clarifies grandfathering, upper-floor treatment and the process flow between staff approvals and board-level decisions.

Court members suggested staff gather examples from comparable Kentucky downtowns and furnish a short written memo summarizing how other municipalities handle first-floor residential and storefront preservation. The planning commission will be asked to incorporate those clarifications and return the item for the court's consideration.