Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Readiness Initiative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenton County Fiscal Court adopts Site Readiness Initiative resolution after heated public comments
Summary
The Fiscal Court voted 4-0 to adopt Resolution 26-15 endorsing the Site Readiness Initiative (SRI) analysis, after an extended public-comment period in which residents called the Resolution misleading and pressed the court to protect rural character and prevent ad hoc zoning changes.
The Kenton County Fiscal Court voted unanimously June 30 to adopt Resolution No. 26-15, which expresses the court’s support for the Site Readiness Initiative (SRI) analysis and directs project staff to continue implementation work.
Residents filled the chamber before the vote and delivered extended public comments urging restraint. Heather Grothaus told the court the Resolution contains “misleading” statements and asked the court to amend passages that she said gloss over overwhelming community opposition. Jessie Dalton said the public deserved “a clear accounting” of what the SRI accomplished and warned that citing 1,900 acres as 3.5% of rural acreage is not meaningful if future courts could add more acreage.
Judge/Executive Kris Knochelmann spent part of the meeting defending the SRI as a study, not a zoning or condemnation action, telling attendees, “There’s no proposal, hasn’t been a planning zoning proposal, There’s not been a zoning change proposed. We’ve not talked about it.” He repeatedly emphasized property owners retain the right to sell or request rezoning and said the effort was intended to identify infrastructure needs and likely areas of interest, not to force development.
Commissioner Beth Sewell framed the SRI as a study and highlighted concurrent county actions she described as protective of rural areas, including a partnership with Boone County Conservancy and budgeted support for farmers and water-extension projects. Commissioner Jon Draud and Commissioner Joe Nienaber both voiced support for the court’s work and defended Judge Knochelmann against personal criticism during debate.
The court’s vote was 4-0 in favor of Resolution 26-15. Judge Knochelmann and commissioners said the resolution was intended to “put it to bed” as an item of study while acknowledging persistent distrust among some residents and inviting further dialogue.
The next procedural step noted during the meeting was publication of the resolution text and the continuation of normal zoning and planning processes should any property owner initiate changes.
