Georgetown leaders launch process to rewrite zoning rules, form steering committee and press state on traffic studies

Georgetown City officials met in a joint work session on Sept. 23, 2025, and agreed to form a joint steering committee to begin targeted updates to the city's zoning ordinance and related development standards. The meeting also produced a direction for staff to explore changes to how traffic impacts are measured and to pursue conversations with state transportation officials and elected representatives about predictive traffic studies.

The decision grew out of a broader review of the city's Goals and Objectives (adopted Jan. 2023) and the Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2024), documents staff said guide future land use, annexation and development decisions. Holden Fleming, director of planning, told council and the planning commission that the agenda items tie directly to a 2024 future land use map and an implementation matrix of roughly 51 items that the city should use to align zoning with the community's stated goals.

Why it matters: The work could change what kinds of housing and commercial development get approved, how annexations are evaluated, and what developers must do to mitigate off-site impacts such as traffic. Council members raised worries about road capacity, emergency services staffing, and the limits of local authority when developers seek zone changes or variances.

Council and commission leaders outlined the scope and next steps. Mayor Bernie Jenkins and staff asked for a steering committee made up of council members, planning commissioners and community representatives to prioritize and phase revisions rather than attempting a single, citywide rewrite at once. Fleming said the committee should use the implementation matrix and indicated the city aims to complete substantial work before the 2027 goals-and-objectives update so the comp plan and goals align.

On zoning and variances, planning staff stressed legal limits. Fleming cited KRS 100.243 when explaining review standards for variances and told the group that House Bill 443 (now integrated into KRS 100) requires objective standards for subdivision and development-plan review unless an approving authority documents a specific threat to public health, safety or welfare. "When you have words like 'substantial evidence'... that's a relatively high bar," Fleming said, noting the new statute narrows discretionary review in the subdivision and development-plan context. He added, "The planning commission is not the enemy of development."

Commission Chair Charlie Mifflin and other commissioners pressed concerns about repeated variances and the city's ability to preserve neighborhood character. "We don't want houses on top of each other," Mifflin said, describing how successive variances can result in outcomes the original standards were meant to prevent.

Traffic and public-safety concerns featured prominently. Several council members and commissioners said some roads (Old Oxford Road was cited) are already inadequate for new residential and commercial projects. Council members said police and fire staffing has lagged behind growth; one council member summarized staffing shortfalls at "maybe around 20, 25, even 30%" for police and fire. That gap shapes questions about whether the city should approve annexations or zoning changes that increase service demands before staffing and facilities are scaled up.

On housing, members discussed multiple approaches mentioned in other cities: requiring a portion of new units be affordable within developments, using tax incentives, or partnering with nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity. Fleming described regulatory tools and incentives municipalities can use but emphasized the need to write those allowances into the zoning text so they are actionable.

Staff outlined how zone change and annexation cases currently move from application to public hearing: staff review, technical review and traffic studies, planning commission public hearing, then a planning commission recommendation forwarded to city council, which may accept the recommendation, hold a new evidentiary hearing, or make separate findings. Fleming said if council does not act within 90 days the planning commission's recommendation carries by operation of law.

Next steps recorded during the meeting were procedural rather than final votes: the mayor and planning director will consult to define the steering committee membership and charge; city council will be asked at its next meeting to make a formal motion directing the planning commission to begin a review of a prioritized set of zoning text amendments; staff will investigate whether traffic studies can be made more predictive and will open talks with state transportation officials and local legislators; and staff agreed to expand advance distribution of planning packets to council members for earlier review.

Council members and staff agreed to phase work products so changes are reviewed in manageable blocks rather than all at once. Fleming recommended a public-engagement-heavy process with a small steering committee, surveys and outreach events, noting that prior criticism of the comp-plan process stemmed from perceptions of low representation. Several council members volunteered to serve on a legislative-side committee and urged staff to assemble community members who frequently attend hearings to ensure early participation.

The meeting closed with a request that the steering group prioritize items from the comprehensive-plan implementation matrix and return recommendations to each body. Mayor Jenkins closed, noting the city should focus on actionable changes starting "from day 1," and the council agreed to take the committee formation and a motion request up at the next council meeting.