Nelson County Fiscal Court approves A‑1 PUD for 13‑lot cluster on Greenville Trust land despite commissioners' denial

Nelson County Fiscal Court voted to approve a zoning change that will allow a 13‑lot cluster residential development on land owned by the Greenville Trust after a contested public hearing and deliberation.

The court approved a map amendment identified in the hearing record as map amendment No. 2775 to convert an A‑1 agricultural parcel to an A‑1 PUD (planned unit development) to permit 13 roughly 1‑acre clustered lots, with the remainder of the roughly 68‑acre parent tract placed under a conservation restriction. The motion to approve was made by Fiscal Court member Keith (last name not specified) and seconded by fiscal court member Jeff (last name not specified); John Snow recorded the lone vote against the measure.

The petitioners, represented by an attorney identified in the transcript as Mister Hamilton, told the court the proposal protects the property’s more sensitive land while allowing smaller, more affordable house lots on ground they describe as already in agricultural use. “It’s going to be developed one way or the other,” Mister Hamilton said during his presentation, adding that a clustered PUD would leave the steep or wooded portions undisturbed and create smaller, lower‑cost lots than a by‑right division into 5‑acre tracts.

Why it matters

The decision overturns a prior unanimous denial by the Nelson County Planning Commission and raises recurring local tensions between property‑rights and rural‑conservation goals in the county’s comprehensive plan. Supporters said the proposal meets the technical PUD requirements and would preserve most of the tract in a conservation remnant; opponents said rezoning the site sets a precedent for ribbon development along narrow county roads, risks groundwater contamination on karst ground and could strain road, water and fire‑response infrastructure.

What the petition would do

Mister Hamilton said the application calls for roughly 13 clustered, roughly 1‑acre residential lots with the balance of the parcel placed under a permanent restriction that would prevent future subdivision of the remnant. Engineer Jim Lamoe, who said he was hired by the landowner to evaluate the site, told the court the soils and topography in the proposed building area are suitable for septic systems and that the site plan provides adequate sight distance for driveways; he said the applicant agreed to fund an upgrade to the local water pump station to improve pressure for the new connections.

Opposition from residents

More than a dozen residents and landowners spoke against the change during the hearing. Tony Jones, who said he lives at 1235 Walter Hall Road, presented a petition he said included about 105 signatures and challenged the petitioners’ claims about local employment and traffic. “Am I gonna lose my water?” Jones asked, citing sinkholes and karst terrain on and near the site and warning that clustering septic systems close together could threaten wells used by nearby households.

Other speakers cited narrow, curving county roads, sight‑distance concerns for multiple new driveways, and fire‑suppression limits for remote properties as reasons to keep a 5‑acre‑minimum A‑1 designation. Mike Zoller, speaking for several neighbors, pointed to language in the county’s comprehensive plan and argued the application conflicted with the plan’s objective to discourage “piano‑key” frontage subdivisions in rural and sensitive areas.

Planning commission and statute cited

Planning staff and several speakers referenced KRS 100.213, the state statute that governs rezoning criteria and requires that either a rezoning be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan or that applicants demonstrate major social, economic or physical changes in the area since adoption. The Planning Commission denied the application after concluding the required change‑of‑character criteria were not met; petitioners argued at the fiscal court hearing that the nearby distillery and related development represented such a change.

Court deliberations and vote

Fiscal court discussion focused on whether the changes in the area justified a rezoning under KRS 100.213 and whether the proposed PUD in fact reduced development of sensitive areas compared with an alternative pattern of 5‑acre lots. Some court members argued the distillery and recent local economic activity meant the area had changed since the comprehensive plan was adopted; others emphasized neighbor concerns.

After deliberation the court voted to approve the map amendment and adopt the A‑1 PUD for the parcel. The motion carried by majority vote; the transcript records one dissenting vote from Fiscal Court member John Snow.

What happens next

The court’s action approves the zoning change; site‑level permits and approvals remain required. The transcript records that Lincoln Trail/Nelson County Health Department approvals for individual septic systems, road encroachment permits from the Nelson County Road Department, and water‑district approvals for the pump upgrade will all be required before houses can be built. Several speakers and court members noted those reviews and permits are separate processes not resolved by today’s zoning vote.

Ending

The court’s approval overturns the Planning Commission’s prior denial and clears the way for the clustered‑lot proposal to move into the permitting phase, subject to health‑department, road‑department and water‑district conditions and the normal platting and recording steps. Neighbors said they plan to watch those follow‑up reviews closely.