Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public urges extension and consultant for Oldham County comprehensive plan; court delays second reading
Summary
Residents at Oldham County Fiscal Court public comment on Dec. 1 urged delaying the comprehensive plan’s second reading and hiring a consultant, citing apparent conflicts with KRS 100.183; the court postponed consideration for two weeks so county counsel can attend.
Dozens of residents and magistrates raised concerns about the draft 2025 comprehensive plan at the Oldham County Fiscal Court meeting on Dec. 1, prompting the court to postpone the plan’s second reading for two weeks to allow county counsel to be present.
Resident Jennifer Toll told the court that "Oldham County has reached a crossroads in its development" and urged officials to seek an extension and hire a consultant to oversee the plan’s development, arguing the draft contains "ambiguous, contradictory" language that she said does not meet the requirements of KRS 100.183. Toll said the plan lacks a cohesive explanation of how its elements relate and warned that those ambiguities could leave the county exposed to lawsuits.
Mary Lowry, another resident who provided written materials to the magistrates, said the plan’s maps have changed and urged clearer definitions for green space, creeks, steep slopes and septic minimum lot sizes. "The goals and objectives of the section should be outlined and explained," she said, and she asked that economic and business sections required by state statute be restored or better documented.
Judge Executive David Vogel told the court the comprehensive plan item would be pushed forward two weeks because county attorney Barry Baxter was not available to answer planning and zoning questions at this meeting. Vogel said that with counsel present the court will address the plan at its next scheduled session.
The public comments focused on statutory compliance, mapping clarity and whether the county should retain outside consulting expertise to ensure the plan’s elements are interrelated and supported by data. No formal vote on the plan occurred at the Dec. 1 meeting; the court’s next procedural step will be consideration of the second reading with county counsel present.
