Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant outlines 13‑lot Golf Course View subdivision; staff and utilities flag fire‑access, sewer and easement needs

Oldham County Technical Review Committee · June 17, 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

At the Oldham County TRC on June 17, the Golf Course View applicant described a 13‑lot R2 subdivision off Saddler's Mill Road and Cox Lane; staff and utilities requested detailed plats, identified required waivers for sidewalks/curbing, and the fire department asked that the Bridget Way intersection be widened for engine access. No decisions were made.

Ryan Fischer, director of Oldham County Planning and Development, opened the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting and stressed that "No testimony in favor or against an application will be taken at this meeting and no decisions are made at this meeting." The first case, TRC26‑011 (Golf Course View at 2040 Cox Lane), was presented by Tim Smith of American Engineering Services, who said the company purchased a 4.18‑acre parcel and proposes up to 13 single‑family lots within the existing R2 zoning, with three lots fronting Saddler's Mill Road, one on Cox Lane and eight served by a new internal street the applicant labeled Bridget Way.

The plan presented basic service information: Tim Smith told the panel the applicant received preliminary sewer approval to tie into an existing Louisville MSD system and that the nearest manhole is across Highway 393 near a cell tower. John Hine, the TRC case manager, enumerated technical plan requirements the submittal must include: abutting street names and grades, locations and types of easements, sanitary sewer lines, notation on stormwater flow, adjacent‑parcel deed references, and explicit identification of any waivers being requested (staff said sidewalks would require a waiver of section 5.5 and curbing a waiver of section 7.1D of the Oldham County subdivision regulations).

County and utility reviewers flagged specific technical items. Louisville MSD requested a downstream facilities capacity request to confirm sewer capacity. The Oldham County Water District (OCWD) review (read into the record) said water service is contingent on developer‑installed infrastructure meeting OCWD specifications and on recorded easements before facilities transfer to the district. Major Brian Clayburn's fire‑department letter recommended widening the Bridget Way throat to 26 feet for 25–30 feet to meet NFPA and International Fire Code turning and unobstructed access standards. Delena Gideons of LG&E and Kentucky Utilities noted an overhead line bisects the plan and that relocating lines would be at the developer's expense (easement reference: deed book 100, page 494).

County engineering and stormwater comments were detailed. Jim Sullivan, the county engineer, said the project will need Oldham County stormwater quality and erosion control permitting and a KYR10 land‑disturbance permit from the Kentucky Division of Water because the disturbance exceeds one acre. He noted a jurisdictional stream mapped on the south portion of the site that could require Army Corps or state coordination for permits or correspondence, and he instructed applicants to demonstrate downstream culvert capacity and to include FEMA map numbers on future submittals. Sullivan also called out geometric items for the proposed Bridget Way (cross‑section/curb versus wider right‑of‑way) and asked the applicant to confirm minimum lot widths and any necessary setback variances for curved lots.

Neighbors asked technical questions. Scott Bryson Hodes, an adjacent property owner on Cox Lane, raised concerns about a potential discontinuance of Cox Lane as a public roadway, the presence of utilities under Cox Lane, setbacks and side‑yard calculations for nearby properties, and whether Cox Lane deserves a traffic study despite staff saying the project generates fewer than the county's 20 peak‑hour trips threshold for an assessment. Hodes asked that staff follow up on closure procedures and the applicant offered to provide written comments and contact information for follow‑up.

What happens next: staff instructed the applicant to submit a preliminary subdivision plan and all requested waivers and variances concurrently for Planning Commission consideration. The TRC provided technical checklists and required engineering/survey stamps for the preliminary plan. No vote or formal action occurred at the TRC; Planning Commission review and any necessary variances will happen at subsequent hearings.