Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fiscal Court adopts order to discontinue portion of Holmes Lane

Marshall County Fiscal Court · May 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Marshall County Fiscal Court adopted an order discontinuing the portion of Holmes Lane beyond the end of existing blacktop (approximately 4,289 feet), concluding the segment no longer serves a public need after a May 7 hearing and finding two landowners had access via the existing blacktop.

Marshall County Fiscal Court on May 26 adopted an order discontinuing any portion of Holmes Lane beyond the end of existing blacktop asphalt, a distance the court recorded as approximately 4,289 feet (about 0.812 miles) from the center of Oak Level Road. The court’s county attorney read a written order, prepared after a May 7 hearing, that cites KRS 178.070 and concludes the described portion “does not serve a public need or public purpose.”

The reading states that Earl K. Hall argued in favor of the discontinuance and that John and Karen Halinka opposed it; the order records both parties as the only landowners with an interest in the matter and notes the Halinkas stated they could access their entire 50-acre parcel through a south gate adjoining blacktop. The county attorney presented the written findings and then the court moved to adopt, sign and approve the order. After brief clarifying comments that the action was not a quitclaim (the court said it lacked authority to effect a quitclaim), the motion carried on a voice vote.

The order, as read into the record, removes the described portion of Holmes Lane from the county road system to whatever extent the court has or had an interest in that portion of the roadway. The read findings include references to KRS 178.070 and to the May 7 hearing notice and written submissions.

The court did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript; the motion was made, seconded and carried by voice vote. The order’s immediate effect and any next procedural steps (such as filing or publication) were not detailed beyond the court’s adoption and signature request following the reading.