Scott County court refuses extra hearing on proposed Bluegrass Metals zoning change

Scott County Fiscal Court voted to decline an additional evidentiary hearing on a zoning map amendment requested by Bluegrass Metal Recyclers LLC, leaving the planning commission's record as the operative file.

The request sought a zoning map amendment for about 53.5 acres from A-1 to I-2 (heavy industrial) on property along Sims Pike. Planning staff made no recommendation; the county planning commission voted 6-2 against the rezoning at its Aug. 14 hearing. Cam, a county staff member, told the court the statutory deadline to act is 90 days and that, if the court takes no action, the planning commission's decision would stand.

The issue drew public comment from nearby residents. Lindsay Cruz, who said she lives on Sims Pike, told the court neighbors had formed a Facebook group opposing the rezoning and cited past incidents and violations involving the applicant: "They also have a laundry list of violations. There was no ground water protection plan in Winchester. Their rod water runoff showed a sheen and an odor. And in 2018 and 2019, they were fine for not remaining in the limits of iron, zinc, and lead." Cruz asked the court not to entertain further hearings.

John Woodall, appearing for the applicant, said the developer is willing to widen Sims Pike to mitigate access concerns and noted that the area is called for industrial use in the comprehensive plan: "This applicant is willing to widen Sims Pike all the way to the property." He said the applicant preferred to secure zoning before spending money to engineer off-site improvements.

Cam summarized the legal standard the court must meet to overturn the planning commission's action: a majority vote of the entire fiscal court following an evidentiary hearing and factual findings if the court were to change the commission's determination. He also noted the administrative deadline: "The 90 day date, is November 12."

A magistrate moved that the court not entertain an additional evidentiary hearing; another magistrate seconded. The court voted in favor by voice and the motion passed, leaving the planning commission's record and recommendation in place unless the court later takes a different action.

The planning commission's opposition emphasized traffic, safety and environmental impacts related to heavy industrial uses on the site; those concerns were part of the hearing record transmitted to the court. With the court's vote, the procedural path forward is the existing planning record unless the fiscal court reopens the matter before the statutory deadline.