Madison County approves rezoning for 2319 Union City Road after lengthy public hearing; residents warned of traffic, septic and safety concerns

Madison County’s Fiscal Court on Oct. 22 approved on second reading a zoning change for 2319 Union City Road, moving the site from agricultural (RC7) to single-family residential (RC1) after a prolonged public hearing and a 4–1 roll-call vote.

Planning staff introduced the developer’s application and noted the Madison County Planning Commission recommended approval. The hearing drew multiple residents and technical witnesses who warned that the proposed 40-lot development would outpace local infrastructure and create safety risks. Organizer Vicky (a Union City resident) told the court her group submitted a petition with 412 signatures and argued the change “does not agree with the comprehensive plan” and raised concerns about lack of sewer, septic suitability and preservation of agricultural land.

Former trooper and resident Stewart Adams cited county emergency-response data and called first-responder staffing and EMS capacity into question, saying the sheriff’s office, EMS and county fire departments logged tens of thousands of calls in recent years and “we can't handle it down there.” Neighbor and contractor TJ Smith said the proposed development would place dozens of new neighbors adjacent to his property and argued that bringing sewer to Union City would require unaffordable infrastructure — describing a five-mile force main and pump station costs he estimated at roughly $1.3–$1.5 million.

Steven Richter, director of EKU’s Institute of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, testified as an expert on soils and water. Richter cited USDA soil maps and university sampling that found elevated E. coli counts in headwater streams near Diamondbrook subdivision. He warned soils on portions of the subject property are prone to high water tables and are “not conducive to septic tanks,” saying seasonal “perk” results can be misleading and that winter conditions produce saturated soils. Richter said those constraints argue for directing growth to the county’s urban corridor rather than small-scale rural subdivisions.

The developer’s attorney, Chris Harrington, responded by noting a regional housing-shortage study and saying site evaluations and final septic approvals are regulated by the state and health department (site-evaluation rules referenced). Planning staff and the court also confirmed that, under county rules, a developer would be required to upgrade Dunbar Lane to county standards at the developer’s expense if the subdivision proceeds.

After concluding the public-comment period and court discussion, the roll call produced the following votes: Master Combs — Yes; Master Lockmuller — Yes; Master Hughes — No; Master Botkin — Yes; Judge Taylor — Yes. The ordinance was adopted 4–1. The court’s adoption is a zoning change approval only; final subdivision construction will require engineering, site approvals and final health-department septic clearance before any certificates of occupancy are issued.

Next procedural steps were not detailed at the meeting beyond the standard process: developer engineering, health-department site-evaluation and planning-commission review of any final plat and road upgrades.