Applicant withdraws Richmond zone map amendment after records show property already zoned R‑1B

Preston Worley, representing Hampton Way 210 LLC, told the Richmond City Planning and Zoning Commission that archived records show the applicant’s 207‑acre parcel at Old Town Branch Road and Congleton Lane already carries an R‑1B single‑family zoning designation, and the applicant therefore withdrew a pending request to rezone the property to R‑1C.

Worley said he and others reviewed archived materials and court records and concluded the property was assigned R‑1B as part of the annexation record. He told commissioners that the applicant would not proceed with a zone change hearing because “the entire 207 acres [are] R 1 B,” and the application for R‑1C was withdrawn. He also said his clients would instead proceed in the development process under the existing R‑1B designation and consider R‑1C only if a future application were filed.

Why it matters: rezoning requests change what types of housing and lot sizes are permitted on a site and can affect future subdivision and preliminary‑plat review. By withdrawing the application, the applicant removed from the commission’s agenda a hearing that would have reconsidered the parcel’s zoning.

Key details and record checks - Worley told the commission he had asked staff, the city clerk and legal counsel to help review archived records. He said the record includes a signed ordinance from February 2003 and a subsequent judicial ruling from the Kentucky Court of Appeals dated about February 2006 that, in his account, upheld the planning commission’s earlier zoning determination. - The applicant said the zoning map shown to the public did not reflect the archived zoning designation, creating an impression the property lacked R‑1B zoning. Counsel present told the commission they had copies of the February 2003 ordinance and the Court of Appeals judgment and offered copies to commissioners and members of the public.

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: Commissioners asked clarifying questions about whether the applicant planned a future rezoning to R‑1C and about title or related issues. The commission and counsel noted preliminary plat review and later public hearings could arise when the developer submits detailed plans. - Direction: Counsel and applicant representatives said the applicant will proceed under R‑1B and that any future changes would come through standard development or rezoning processes. - Formal action: The applicant withdrew its pending zone map amendment application; the commission did not hold a zone change hearing on the item.

Quotations - “The entire 207 acres [are] R 1 B,” Preston Worley said, summarizing the archived record the applicant relied on. - Counsel told the commission they had “copies of the signed official ordinance from 02/2003, and … copies of the judgment of the court of appeals from 02/2006” and offered them to commissioners and the public.

Context and next steps - Commission staff noted that while the zoning designation is established in the archive records, the preliminary‑plat stage for any subdivision or development will be open to public comment and review by the commission at a later date. The applicant indicated it will continue development work under the R‑1B zoning and return if it chooses to file for a different zoning classification in the future.

Ending The commission did not take a formal vote on the zoning map amendment because the applicant withdrew the request after presenting the archival records. Any future subdivision or rezoning proposals for the site will return to the commission under the city’s standard review procedures.