Council advances Preservation and Growth Management ordinance after two amendments

The Lexington Fayette Urban County Council on Jan. 20 moved the Preservation and Growth Management Program ordinance to the Jan. 22 council meeting for a first reading after adopting two amendments intended to clarify how vacant land is defined and who sits on the subcommittee that reviews expansion proposals.

Vice Mayor Wu introduced and explained the first amendment, which clarifies that a parcel qualifies as vacant land if it either meets an agricultural zoning/land‑use criterion OR it satisfies both of two other conditions (no urban principal/conditional land use and no current certificate of occupancy or building permit). Planning staff told council they saw no issue with the rewording. The council passed that amendment by voice vote.

Councilmember Sheehan then moved a second amendment to section 4 to require appointing bodies to "seek to balance the professional expertise of the subcommittee members across the following areas: agriculture and farmland; economic development; environmental services pertaining to soil, water, and ecology; housing and real estate; infrastructure, utilities, and construction; or other relevant expertise." That amendment also passed by voice vote.

The ordinance, as amended, was placed on the Jan. 22 docket for first reading with no recorded opposition. Councilmember Sheehan, reporting from the General Government & Planning Committee, said the program is a data‑driven framework designed to guide future growth while preserving agricultural land and to formalize how urban service area expansion requests are evaluated. Sheehan noted the committee had recommended placement for first reading following presentations and discussion at the Dec. 2 committee meeting.

Public commenters urged additional clarifications as the draft advances. Britney Rothmeyer, speaking on behalf of the Fayette Alliance, thanked planning staff for the outreach and recommended the draft explicitly account for redevelopment (not only vacant land) when calculating future housing‑supply needs — suggesting a redevelopment target to reduce vacant‑land demand — and urged adding a cost‑of‑community‑services analysis so voters and officials can see the fiscal implications of expansion. "This process will only be as strong as the careful details that are included within it," Rothmeyer said.

Rolanda Wolfolk, speaking for a neighborhood council, said neighborhoods that experience long histories of development pressure should be treated as experts on local conditions and called for clearer definitions of "underutilized" parcels and attention to environmental constraints such as sinkholes, flooding and sewer capacity. "We are the neighborhood who knows what's going on in our neighborhood," Wolfolk said.

Other public speakers urged that parking‑dominant parcels be counted as potential infill opportunities and that the plan consider business‑site needs alongside housing. Susan Pollock, a District 3 resident, asked the council to evaluate whether business land could be accommodated inside the current urban service area before expanding and to be explicit about who pays infrastructure costs when new subdivisions are constructed.

Planning staff told council that data from the program (including annual vacant‑parcel review results) will be published on imaginelexington.com/arc (the analytic research center) and that the subcommittee and planning commission will evaluate proposed expansions with attention to buffering, service provision and PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program protections.

The work session record shows the council approved the ordinance as amended and moved it forward for first reading. The ordinance is intended to be adopted into the comprehensive plan by Aug. 1, 2026, per committee materials. The first formal reading is scheduled for the Jan. 22 council meeting.