Council places Higbee Mill rezoning on docket despite neighborhood opposition

The Lexington City Council voted March 4 to place on the docket an ordinance for 940 Higbee Mill Road that would change the property from single-family R‑1C zoning to townhouse R‑1T for first reading without a public hearing.

Neighbors who spoke at the meeting said the applicant failed to conduct meaningful public engagement and raised technical concerns about the site. "They felt bullied. They felt threatened. They felt intimidated by the applicant," said Michelle Harr, president of the Higbee Mill neighborhood association and a resident of Council District 9.

Harr told the council the project has been on-and-off for more than two years and that crews from KU and Kentucky American Water recently told neighbors the property is difficult to develop because of substantial easements. "I also understand that KU and Kentucky American Water were out there at the site about a week ago, and both of those crews told neighbors this property is really not developable because of the issues with the very large easements," she said.

Attorney Lexi Holland, representing Claire and Clovis Collins of 3541 Cephas Way, which backs up to the Higbee Mill site, described a prolonged dispute over an abandoned right-of-way between neighbors and the applicant. Holland said the applicant filed suit against neighbors demanding a right-of-way that could not be granted and that a local judge recently dismissed that case. "What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of desire to truly engage with their neighbors on this project," Holland said.

Councilmember Baxter moved to place the rezoning on the docket under ordinances for first reading without a public hearing; Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion. Baxter explained he had spoken with neighbors in opposition and that he intends to address process issues during the development-plan review and by asking the General Government and Planning Committee to review initial public engagement requirements. "I did not make this decision without consulting those in opposition," Baxter said.

Planning staff told the council that their initial recommendation on the application had been disapproval, but that the applicant modified the application and staff recommended approval by the time the Planning Commission considered it. The Planning Commission vote on the application was 7–1–1 in favor of approval, the staff representative said.

Councilmember Savigny asked whether a developer could use an administrative pathway by signing a commitment to provide worker-class housing to change zoning without coming before council; planning staff responded that such a pathway is handled by the division of planning and the Planning Commission and would not come to council. The staff also said the applicant did not pursue that option.

When the council voted on placing the ordinance on the docket, Councilmember Gray cast the only recorded opposing vote; the motion passed.

Councilmember Baxter later moved to place a review of the council's public engagement process for zone changes into the General Government and Planning Committee; the motion passed.

What happens next: the rezoning ordinance has been placed on the council docket for first reading without a public hearing and will proceed through the development-plan approval stage and the committee review Baxter requested. Neighbors and the applicant may appear in future meetings as the development-plan process continues.