Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Bridal Properties plan after archaeology report, despite residents’ concerns about possible gravesites
Summary
The Fayette Urban County Government Planning Commission approved the Bridal Properties development plan for 1800 Bryant Road with eight conditions, including a 30% tree canopy requirement, after the applicant’s archaeological consultant reported no evidence of graves on the parcel. A resident urged an independent review of applicant-funded studies.
The Fayette Urban County Government Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Bridal Properties final development plan for 1800 Bryant Road, adding an eighth condition that the project meet a 30% tree canopy requirement.
The decision followed a staff presentation that noted a historic-plat annotation marking two gravesites in the general area and an applicant presentation by attorney Nathan Billings and HMB Consultants, who reported they found "no historical evidence and no visual evidence that there are any gravesites on 1800 Bryant Road." Billings told the commission his team reviewed historical maps and photographs, performed a visual inspection and limited test digs, and consulted preservation authorities.
The plan had been continued from prior meetings because commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about layout, unit count and the possible presence of graves. Billings said his team met on site with the neighbor who raised the concern and with consulting archaeologists; he also said staff consulted the Kentucky Heritage Council and the Kentucky Historical Society and found no mapped cemetery record for the parcel. Billings also cited state law protections, saying that under KRS 72 contractors must stop work and notify authorities if human remains are discovered during construction.
A resident who identified herself as Denise told the commission she was worried about relying on an applicant-funded investigation and asked for an independent, government-led review or time for neighborhood groups to present their own findings: "Why are we letting the applicant do the due diligence of finding out this information? ... that seems conflict of interest." Commissioners asked staff how the commission should evaluate third-party reports submitted by applicants; staff replied that such reports are common and that the commission must weigh them alongside any other evidence and staff checks.
After discussion commissioners amended the approval motion to include the tree canopy requirement and approved the development plan with the conditions recommended by staff. Separately, the commission approved a waiver so the applicant need only construct a sidewalk on one side of the adjacent street segment; that waiver also carried unanimously.
The commission’s approvals are conditioned on the items listed in staff’s report and standard sign-offs (engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, water and sewer approvals, urban forester and others). If human remains are encountered during future construction, state statute KRS 72 requires work to stop immediately and authorities to be notified; that statutory requirement was cited in the commission’s discussion and in the applicant’s presentation.
The planning commission’s record of conditions and required sign-offs will accompany the project as it moves to permitting and any required platting steps.
