Planning staff presented a zoning ordinance text amendment to implement House Bill 443 and described how the change will move final development-plan approvals from discretionary hearings to an objective, staff-level (ministerial) review process effective July 1, 2025.

The change responds to state law requiring measurable, objective standards for development and shifts most final development-plan approvals to a technical review committee if an application “checks the boxes.” The planning division said waivers — and limited staff referrals for health, safety and welfare concerns — will be the principal avenues for public hearings.

The amendment is intended to preserve a community “floor” of standards staff say the city has applied informally, including measurable dimensions for sidewalks, access separation from rail crossings, parking and other site features. Daniel Crum, principal planner, said staff and subject-matter experts from engineering, traffic and other divisions converted subjective language into objective, codified standards so the city could continue to enforce safety- and design-related expectations under the new ministerial framework.

Commissioner Keith Horn, Department of Planning and Preservation, framed the change as legally required rather than staff preference and stressed that the new process does not prevent public engagement in plan-making, comprehensive-plan updates, small-area plans or zone-change hearings. He said the state law does not prohibit public comment but removes public input as a basis for staff’s ministerial decisions on applications that meet objective standards.

Staff described their outreach since late 2024 and early 2025: meetings with stakeholder groups including the Commercial Property Association of Lexington (CPAL), the Building Industry Association, the Fayette Alliance, land-use attorneys and engineers; written comments from citizens; and notification to roughly 280 neighborhood associations. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft twice (March 27 and April 10), recommended the staff alternative text, and urged the council to consider additional avenues for meaningful public input where allowed by state law.

Council members asked detailed questions about: (1) which parts of the ordinance were made objective and where numeric standards came from (staff said they were developed by subject-matter experts and by reference to division manuals and industry best practice); (2) how often applicants might request waivers and how waivers would be noticed (staff said adjacent property owners would receive notice of waiver requests and the matter would be heard at the Planning Commission two weeks later); (3) whether the change could speed approvals for projects that meet the standard (staff estimated technical review and approval of a complete final development plan in roughly three weeks, versus about six weeks or more under the previous Planning Commission hearing schedule); and (4) what constitutes the narrow “health, safety and welfare” exception that can send a plan to the commission (staff said it must be a site-specific, actionable concern that rises above general disagreement).

Multiple council members expressed concern that the ministerial shift will reduce opportunities for meaningful neighborhood input on redevelopment that does not require a zone change. Speakers suggested expanding waiver notice beyond adjacent property owners to include neighborhood associations or a larger radius, and asked staff to develop clearer public-facing materials explaining how and when residents can share site-specific information that might constitute a health, safety, or welfare concern.

Staff acknowledged trade-offs: a ministerial process increases predictability for applicants but limits discretionary review and public influence on final plans; the waiver process is intended as a targeted public hearing for requests that deviate from codified standards. Planning staff said they removed items from the draft where public feedback indicated the provisions were aspirational rather than necessary for compliance with state law.

No formal vote on the ZOTA occurred in committee; staff said the item will be formally considered at the work session and can be amended there. Councilmember Brown asked for a follow-up report on the ZOTA’s impacts at six months and a review after one year. Planning staff said they will continue outreach and recommended tracking waivers to identify standards that may need revision.

For residents: final development plans submitted for properties already zoned to allow a proposed use will generally be reviewed at staff level rather than through a Planning Commission public hearing unless the applicant seeks a waiver or staff raises a health, safety or welfare issue. Staff said they are available to meet with residents and will provide materials explaining the new process.

The committee moved other business and scheduled further discussion of related items (preservation and growth management program; solar-energy ZOTA) for future meetings.