Council debates intent to annex 25.85-acre Cedar Grove parcel amid resident opposition

Shepherdsville Mayor Jose Cabrero and council members took up an ordinance (025022) declaring the city's intent to annex 25.853 acres on Cedar Grove Road on a motion and second, triggering an extended public discussion and member debate.

The question of intent mattered because, as Council member Mike Hibbert noted during the meeting, "Tonight's vote appears to be for the intent only. It does not actually annex this property." The ordinance, sponsored by Council member Mike Hibbert, would refer the parcel to the Bullitt County Joint Planning Commission for a zoning recommendation if the council adopted the city's intent to annex the land.

Residents and several council members pressed concerns about drainage, traffic and economic assumptions tied to warehouse development. Multiple speakers said the city has already permitted several warehouses in recent years and that many of those facilities remain empty; one council member asked whether the city was relying on occupational tax revenue from warehouse tenants and warned the work might not materialize. Another council member said the city must ensure adequate transitions between industrial and residential land uses to avoid problems such as property damage and water impacts reported near prior developments.

Council discussion described the next steps if the council approved the intent: the matter would go to planning and zoning for a rezoning hearing; if the planning commission recommended rezoning, the council would consider two separate votes on rezoning and annexation later (the council referenced a possible August timeline for first readings). Several council members emphasized they wanted a consistent, transparent process and for residents' voices to be heard during planning and zoning hearings.

A motion and second to consider the annexation-intent ordinance were made and a roll-call vote was held. The provided transcript excerpt records multiple spoken "no" responses during that roll-call, but it does not include an unequivocal, complete final tally or an explicit statement of final disposition of Ordinance 025022 in the excerpt. The council also discussed that a formal "no" vote on the intent would, by statute and local practice described in the meeting, leave the city with no further annexation action on the matter absent new filings by the property owner.

The annexation topic drew a large public turnout and extended debate. Council members urged residents to continue participating at planning and zoning if the property moves forward there. The transcript shows the matter remained contentious at the time of the excerpt and that the process (referral to planning and zoning, subsequent hearings and separate votes) would determine any ultimate rezoning or annexation.

Looking ahead, the record in the transcript shows the council discussed scheduling planning and zoning review and potential first readings in August; residents were asked to monitor notices and attend the planning commission hearing if they wished to comment. The transcript does not include a clear certified vote result allowing this article to state a formal approval or rejection based solely on the provided excerpt.