Fayette County Commissioners voted July 9 to overturn a Planning Commission recommendation and deny a petition to reclassify a 6.29‑acre parcel owned by Bradley Designs LLC from rural residential to B‑3 (tourism) zoning. The parcel is located west of the Bradley Designs/Lois Lane area and was the subject of an extended public hearing that included testimony from the applicant’s attorney and multiple neighbors.

The decision mattered because the applicant proposed a B‑3, recreation‑oriented use that would allow short‑term rental cabins; opponents said the change would alter a long‑standing rural residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission had recommended approval, describing the B‑3 designation as “more restrictive” than alternate uses and limiting future development, but county commissioners found the record insufficient to rezone the site.

Applicant attorney Evan Dov, who identified himself as an associate attorney with Clay Wolf (representing Bradley Designs), told commissioners his client modified earlier, larger plans and now proposes small cabins for short‑term recreational rental. Dov said the owner has invested about "$40,000 worth of investment" in site work, described a roughly "120 feet" forested buffer to protect neighbors’ view sheds, and said "it is planned that eventually be 5 structures." He said two or three small units are already on site and that the cabins are about "300 or square feet, 12 by 28." Dov said the owner intends to staff the site 24 hours a day and had dropped a prior RV/campground plan in response to neighbor concerns.

Neighbors and their attorney urged the commission to deny the rezoning. West Tony, who said he represents Holly and Rick Pannell, argued the change from rural residential to B‑3 is a major alteration and cited a packet of neighbor objections and a petition submitted to the Planning Commission. Tony stressed the perceived nuisance risk from short‑term rentals and said the applicant’s proposals had shifted between filings (planning documents initially referenced four cabins; later filings discussed five or more structures). A packet exhibit and a quoted social‑media message were raised by opponents as evidence of potential disruptive short‑term rental behavior.

Other speakers included William Stevens, who asked whether a church trustee had been approached and said the church’s regular attendees had not been contacted; a pastor for the nearby congregation said members he had spoken to oppose the change. Neighbors said they were not consulted before development began and voiced concerns about traffic and noise near the church.

After public comment, a commissioner moved to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation and deny rezoning. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote; the clerk recorded the outcome as the County Commission choosing "not to uphold the planning commission's recommendation" and denying the rezoning. The county clerk or counsel was instructed to prepare a written order reflecting the commissioners’ decision and advising the parties of appellate rights.

The record shows a contested zoning history: the applicant told commissioners the parcel was vacant for decades after prior mining‑era ownership, that the owner purchased it at tax sale, and that the owner has previously been involved in litigation with neighbors over an easement (the attorney for the applicant said those criminal charges were dismissed under a diversion agreement). Commissioners who voted to deny said the changes presented to the panel and neighbors were not sufficiently clarified and that the threat of alternate development did not justify rezoning.

The county will issue a written order with instructions on appeals. No variances or other zoning approvals were granted at the meeting.