Council introduces Payne’s Depot annexation and R-2 PUD zoning amid heated debate over growth, variances and moratorium

The Georgetown City Council on July 28 introduced ordinances to annex roughly 30.22 acres on Payne’s Depot Road (the Sharp property) and to rezone the site to an R‑2 planned unit development (PUD). The proposal presented by city planning staff and the applicant would allow a mixed‑housing project shown on a concept plan as about 240 apartments, 15 townhomes and 65 single‑family homes, and it included multiple variance requests that prompted extended debate among council members.

Ben Fleming, the city planner, told council the parcel lies inside Georgetown’s urban service boundary and has been shown for development in prior comprehensive plans; staff and the planning commission recommended consideration of the rezoning to R‑2 PUD. Applicant and engineer Michael Barlow told the council the plan aims to preserve on‑site open space, including a pond, and to concentrate multifamily units toward the frontage and away from existing neighborhoods.

Council members pressed staff and the applicant on several points: the cumulative scale of recent annexations, the number and character of variance requests included in the submission, the risk of approving a zoning change that would invite many variances at the development stage, and response‑capacity for public services. Multiple council members asked staff for a breakdown of acreage annexed into the city recently and requested clearer estimates on impacts to police, fire and roads.

Planning staff said the application currently is a zone‑change/first‑reading matter; they set aside the applicant’s variance requests for later review at the development‑plan stage so each variance could be judged on the standards required by state law (KRS 100.243). Several council members argued the approach highlights a gap between the city’s development rules and the type of projects proposed and urged a separate review of the city’s zoning code.

A broader policy debate followed. Several councilors said the city should consider a temporary moratorium on residential annexations or a focused review of residential zoning standards while staff and the council update ordinances and procedures. Other councilors cautioned that a moratorium would need a clear scope and timeline and that the city should instead pursue workshops and training to tighten development standards and clarify roles between the council and planning bodies.

What happens next: Both the annexation ordinance and the rezoning ordinance were publicly introduced (first reading) at the July 28 meeting; the rezoning is contingent on annexation and the items will return for additional readings and technical review if the applicant proceeds. Council directed staff to prepare additional information requested by members — including acreage tallies of recent annexations, further technical‑review notes on transportation improvements that would be required at the developer’s cost (for example, a left‑turn lane on Payne’s Depot frontage), and a schedule for possible workshops and training on zoning and variance review.