Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on UDO, historic‑preservation safeguards and overlay district
Summary
Multiple residents urged clearer procedures and more transparency for the city’s Unified Development Ordinance review, raised concerns that the overlay district for Fort Thomas Avenue would overreach, and asked for an independent audit of a major infrastructure project; city staff defended the meeting process and cited an upcoming Nov. 18 hearing.
Several residents used the council’s visitors and communications period to press for changes to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), stronger historic‑preservation sign‑off procedures and more transparency in planning meetings.
A frequent speaker (identified in the transcript as Speaker 9) said residents raised procedural concerns about the October 1 planning meeting, including questions about speaking time limits, the availability of cross‑examination and the handling of court precedents. The speaker asked whether anyone had reviewed those points; city staff responded that the city consulted the Kentucky League of Cities (KLC), that the meeting structure was intended to provide due process and that a November 18 hearing will let council consider Planning Commission recommendations.
Joan Perez (66 Vernon Lane) warned the council that the proposed 458‑page UDO includes many discretionary provisions that could be overlooked ‘‘on the very whim of someone in power,’’ noting the draft uses the word “waiver” 138 times and “appeal” 103 times in her review. Another resident who identified concerns about the proposed overlay district on North and South Fort Thomas Avenue said canvassing of 36 households produced 25 opposed, one in favor and seven who accepted the overlay only for new builds; that speaker argued homeowners did not consent to additional oversight and urged council to weigh neighborhood sentiment.
The public also asked about a prior allegation that an elected official may have placed personal interest ahead of the public trust and requested an independent third‑party audit of the Highland/Highway project covering acquisition, finances and legal matters; staff said that option remains under consideration and is still 'on the table.'
Council asked residents to provide specifics where possible so staff can follow up and noted the procedural review and future hearings will continue as the Planning Commission recommendations move to the council. No immediate ordinance adoption or vote occurred during the visitors’ comments portion.
The council did not take legislative action on the UDO or overlay district at this meeting; next procedural steps include the November 18 hearing and continued review by staff and the Planning Commission.
