Oldham County approves rezoning for two LaGrange parcels after contested public hearing

The Oldham County Fiscal Court voted to approve a zoning map amendment for two adjacent parcels on West Kentucky Highway 146 in LaGrange, permitting a single two‑story building with five apartment units and 10 parking spaces.

Judge Vogel and other magistrates approved the amendment (ordinance/rezoning docket KOC 26‑920‑003) following a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors raised concerns about proximity to the active CSX rail line, noise and diesel particulates, reduced setbacks and potential impacts on traffic and school capacity.

Anna Barge, assistant director of planning and development, told the court the application from Key Homes LLC covers two lots totaling about 0.36 acres and that the Planning Commission recommended the amendment by a 9–1 vote; the Board of Adjustments had approved a rear-yard setback variance of 21 feet by a 4–0 vote. Barge said staff posted required notices in accordance with KRS 100 and that the Planning Commission’s approval included binding elements restricting changes without further review.

Attorney Mike Swansberg, representing the applicant, argued the request is consistent with Oldham County’s comprehensive plan or, alternatively, reflects major economic and physical changes in the area since 2018 that justify rezoning under KRS 100.213. He described the proposal as a single, high‑quality five‑unit building of about 7,500 square feet with two accessible parking spaces and a total of 10 spaces, and said CSX reviewed the plans and required only a six‑foot temporary construction fence to prevent runoff to the right‑of‑way.

Billy Delker, owner of Key Homes and the property’s applicant, said he is a longtime Oldham County resident and developer and described the site as previously blighted; he told the court the development would “clean up” the area and provide additional housing options.

Residents speaking in opposition urged the court to deny the amendment. Laura O’Brien (LaGrange) told magistrates she had circulated information on social media after noticing the proposal and cited World Health Organization and IARC guidance linking long‑term diesel exhaust and rail noise to adverse health outcomes. O’Brien also questioned the posted notices and urged the court to prioritize constituent interests: “You are here to represent your constituents,” she said. She flagged a 21‑foot variance that would leave the building corner about four feet from the property line, limited on‑site parking and potential traffic and school capacity issues.

Attorney Swansberg responded that similar uses already exist nearby, that a five‑unit building is unlikely to materially increase school enrollment or peak traffic, and that social‑media polls are not a statutory basis to deny a map amendment.

During deliberations, magistrates asked detailed questions about sewer service, lot coverage (staff said proposed structural coverage is about 24%, below the R4 50% maximum), CSX review emails, detention basin location, and tree/landscaping plans. The applicant’s engineer confirmed the site will be served by public sewer, and applicants agreed to install erosion controls and a construction fence as requested by CSX.

Magistrate Jeffries moved to approve the rezoning on the grounds that major changes have occurred in the area; the motion was seconded and amended on the floor to include the Planning Commission’s three binding elements (approval applies only to the plan presented 12/09/2025; no changes without review by the Planning Commission and engineer’s office; plan must comply with all federal, state and county ordinances and easement restrictions) and to add a permanent six‑foot fence along the back of the property adjacent to CSX as an additional binding element. The court approved the motion (recorded vote: motion carried, 6 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstention).

Judge Vogel closed the hearing after the vote. The approval includes the binding elements read into the record; any future changes to the plan will require review by the Planning Commission and the county engineer’s office.

What’s next: The developer will proceed to engineering and construction planning; the applicant estimated several months of engineering followed by roughly eight months of construction if approvals proceed. Any future civil‑plan reviews and construction‑phase permits will be subject to county and KYTC review where applicable.

Sources and attributions: quotes and factual points in this story are taken from sworn testimony and presentations to Oldham County Fiscal Court during the public hearing (applicant presentation by Mike Swansberg; public testimony by Laura O’Brien; staff presentation by Anna Barge).