Fort Thomas residents press planning commission to revise 2018 comprehensive plan; commissioners pause review

Fort Thomas Planning Commission members heard extended public comment on revising the city's 2018 comprehensive plan during their meeting, with residents urging clearer evidence-based changes, more outreach and caution about proposed increases in housing density.

The comments focused on whether the plan's goals and objectives reflect citizen preferences and existing law. "I had no idea that a comprehensive plan even existed," said Peggy Maggio, a Fort Thomas resident of 37 South Shoreline, recounting her reaction to zoning proposals shown during an earlier adoption process. Maggio criticized several land-use goals in the 2018 plan as inconsistent with the results of a city survey and asked commissioners to "take a serious look" and revise sections she says are not supported by evidence.

Why it matters: Under Kentucky law, courts may look to a municipality's comprehensive plan when resolving land-use disputes. Speakers said inconsistencies between the plan text, prior public-survey responses and the city's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) risk producing confusion for residents and developers.

Public comment and staff responses

Maggio said portions of the land-use and focus sections call for higher-density housing in the Central Business District, including rowhouses and multifamily buildings, and cited a city survey she said dated to February 2016 that, in her view, did not support those recommendations. "When you look at the comprehensive plan ... that's exactly what this comprehensive plan calls for," Maggio said, adding that some objectives in the plan "do not comport with what Fort Thomas citizens want." She asked the commission to review, remove or reword items not grounded in evidence.

Patty Huberbold, 26 Woodland Place and a member of the land-use and zoning committee, said committee rosters included many people with city or business ties and that relatively few plain residents served on the committee. "There were probably 7 plain residents that were involved in that committee," she said, arguing the committee composition is relevant when weighing whether the plan reflects broad community input.

Several speakers and commissioners discussed survey data and its evidentiary value. A staff member identified in the meeting as Tim cautioned that while surveys can be useful, "surveys are great. Surveys are terrible," and advised the commission to scrutinize who conducted a survey, how questions were asked and whether results remain applicable. Tim said the commission could consider commissioning an updated survey if it wanted more current input.

City staff (identified in the meeting as Kevin) offered to assemble and provide the city-conducted survey and the responses for the commission to review.

Related topics raised during public comment included pedestrian access and transit. Hilary Landwehr, 47 Woodland Place, urged the commission to consider public-transit access in planning work, describing a 45-minute uphill walk she once took from a TANK bus stop and warning that an aging population will increase mobility challenges.

Plan content, legal context and next steps

Speakers repeatedly referenced the interplay between the comprehensive plan, earlier plans (2005) and the UDO. Maggio and other residents asked commissioners to identify which parts of the 2018 plan should remain, which should be revised and which are moot because of the UDO. Commissioners and staff noted that an addendum or targeted revisions could adopt some elements of the 2018 plan without re-adopting the entire document word-for-word.

Commissioner Dan, a long-serving member who announced this would be his final meeting after roughly 40 years on planning bodies, urged the group to view the comprehensive plan as a vision for where the city should go rather than a snapshot of current conditions.

No substantive changes to the plan were adopted at the meeting. Commissioners discussed delaying detailed revisions and improving public notice for future meetings; one commissioner suggested pushing goals-and-objectives discussion to the next meeting and further soliciting council input and additional public participation.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to adjourn: Motion read from the floor; second provided. Passed by voice vote. (No roll-call tally recorded.)

Ending

Commissioners ended the meeting after the public-comments period. City staff said they would gather and provide the prior survey and responses for commission review; commissioners indicated they would seek additional council input and consider public-notice improvements before continuing detailed revisions to the comprehensive plan.