Commission approves affordable senior‑housing plan despite neighbors’ 'bait‑and‑switch' objections

The Lexington Urban County Planning Commission approved a preliminary development plan for a senior‑living building and 10 single‑family lots at 4630 Old Schoolhouse Lane (PLNMJDP2567) after extensive public comment and a majority vote.

Johan Graham, president of AU Associates, said his firm plans an affordable senior rental development financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program for households with a head of household age 55 or older and incomes at or below 60% of the area median. Graham said the three‑acre tract would hold about 45 units and that the building was reduced from three stories to two to better fit the surrounding neighborhood. He gave a unit mix of 33 one‑bedroom and 12 two‑bedroom units and said the nearest fixed‑route bus stop is at Wellington and Harrodsburg; AU Associates noted paratransit (the Wheels program) as an option for residents with limited mobility.

Planning staff flagged technical items that remain to be completed — graphic easement notations, a tree inventory map and documentation for stormwater maintenance — but recommended approval subject to 13 departmental signoffs and correction of deficiencies.

Speakers from adjacent neighborhoods strongly objected. Bruce Simpson and several Dogwood Trace and La Crosse Court residents said the 2022 zoning and earlier public statements had been presented and relied on as commitments to single‑family homes; they called the proposed rental senior facility a “bait and switch” that would reduce homeownership opportunities and increase through‑traffic. “Approval of this plan will indicate that promise doesn't have to be complied with,” Simpson said. Several neighbors also raised concerns about tree removal and the safety of perimeter trees that were left as a 10‑foot buffer during earlier clearing.

The applicant and staff disputed that the planning commission could refuse the plan when the parcel is zoned R‑3 and the proposal complies with subdivision regulations. Staff and the applicant emphasized that conditional zoning restrictions — the only legally binding limits on uses — were not placed on the property in the 2022 rezoning except for an eight‑foot fence requirement along the property line; absent such restrictions the R‑3 zoning allows multifamily uses.

Commissioners were divided in the debate. Several acknowledged neighborhood frustration and raised questions about compatibility; others noted the city’s need for affordable housing and that the proposed senior facility would generate fewer vehicle trips per dwelling unit than single‑family homes, citing Institute of Transportation Engineers figures used by staff. After discussion a majority voted to approve the plan with the 13 staff conditions and the required departmental signoffs.

Next steps: the applicant must supply the missing easement and tree‑inventory documentation and obtain engineering, traffic, environmental and water‑quality approvals before final platting and building permits. Neighbors were advised that appeals or requests to the Urban County Council about street closures or permanent right‑of‑way changes would need to proceed through council and public‑works channels.