Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Boone County takes first reading for zoning change at 5856 Burlington Pike near Dinsmore Woods

Boone County Fiscal Court · March 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court took first reading of an ordinance to rezone roughly 28.4 acres at 5856 Burlington Pike from I‑3 (industrial/surface mining) to A‑1 (agricultural); the planning commission recommended approval citing consistency with the comprehensive plan and protection of the nearby Dinsmore property. Second reading scheduled for March 25.

Lauren Elliott of Boone County Planning and Zoning presented a zoning map amendment request for 5856 Burlington Pike during the March 11 fiscal‑court meeting. The request covers approximately 28.4 acres of a 32.2‑acre parcel and would change the zoning from Industrial‑3 (surface mining) to Agricultural‑1 to better reflect current use and to reduce permitted intensity near the Dinsmore Woods and the historic Dinsmore Homestead.

Elliott said the proposed concept plan creates one new buildable lot and one new single‑family residence (two dwelling units total) and noted the Planning Commission found the request consistent with the comprehensive plan’s future‑land‑use designations for the Bellevue/McVille area. The applicant, Susan Shuffet, told the court she intends to build a smaller house so her daughter’s family can occupy the current residence and that the family no longer requires I‑3 surface‑mining zoning.

Shauna read the ordinance for first reading; the court recorded there was no opposition at the planning public hearing and that the Planning Commission recommended approval with no conditions. The court took first reading and scheduled second reading and public comment for March 25.

The court did not vote to adopt the ordinance at first reading; action will be taken at second reading per standard procedure.