As a general practice, each property in Franklin County that is submitted for a zone change request must appear before the planning & zoning commission, as was the case for 690 Duncan Road. To facilitate the process, Robert Hewitt (Director, Franklin County Planning and Building Codes) and his team conducted an in-depth analysis of the subject property to determine the pros and cons of a zone change and ultimately provided a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In the case of 690 Duncan Road, the county staff’s recommendation was to APPROVE the rezone request from Agriculture District (AG) to Industrial General District (IG) and was supported with rationale based on 6 Findings of Fact.
During the P&Z commission meeting on June 6, 2022, the county staff originally presented six findings, but the commission dismissed #1. Therefore, the list of 5 “Findings of Fact” as presented by the county are listed below. Also provided is a list that shows how each member either voted for or against the “Findings of Fact.” Lastly, an explanation of each point showing support, or a rebuttal is provided.
1. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as a future employment center. This is correct; the property at 690 Duncan Rd is designated as a future employment center, and it passed. The land use map is included in the P&Z packets and the property has been recognized as a Future Employment Center for the last 19 years.
Yes: Cross – Jackson – Looney – Lee- Sweger – Wright
No: Luscher – May – Sanderson
2. IG is appropriate for an Employment Center Land Use Designation. This is correct; however, it did not pass. The Comprehensive Plan states that “Employment Centers” are areas that encompass primarily office, warehousing, and light manufacturing areas in a “campus style development.” This campus style development is referring to a developed Industrial Park such as the neighboring property – Industrial Park #3.
· Yes: Jackson – Lee- Wright
· No: Cross - Luscher – May – Sanderson - Looney – Sweger
3. The subject property is bound by industrial zone to the east, west and north in Franklin County. This is correct, however; it did not pass. The maps that the commission had in front of them clearly showed that the subject property is bound by industrial zones on three sides. In fact, Mr Tierney is recorded as saying that he built 7,000 sq ft of industrial property on the sides of the Duncan Rd property.
Yes: Jackson – Lee- Wright- Sanderson
No: Cross - Luscher – May – Looney – Sweger
4. The subject property is adjacent to an established industrial park in Franklin County. This is correct and it passed.
Yes: Cross - Jackson – Lee- Wright- Sanderson – Looney – Sweger
No: Cross - Luscher – May
5. The subject property is within 1 mile of the I-64 interchange. This is correct and it passed.
Yes: Cross - Jackson – Lee- Looney – Luscher - Wright- Sanderson - May – Sweger
No: N/A
Notwithstanding the first “Finding of Fact” presented by the county planners, which is not listed here, the P&Z Commission approved #1, #4 and #5 and rejected #2 and #3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the “Findings of Fact” presented by the county staff were voted on, P&Z members Sweger and Paul Looney submitted their own “Findings of Fact”.
6. The Comp Plan Future Land Use Map does not designate the property as industrial. This is correct and it passed. This is why the request to be rezoned to IG was being made in the first place – to change the zoning, so this finding is irrelevant. This Duncan Road property is designated in the Future Land Use map as a future employment center which includes industrial.
Yes: Cross – Jackson – Looney – Luscher – May – Sanderson – Sweger
No: Lee
7. IG zoning allows land uses such as heavy manufacturing that are not compatible with the future land use map designation employment center; therefore, IG zoning for this property is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. This passed, but it is not true. IG is allowed in the employment center designation and the restrictions that differentiate Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial are determined during the building permit process. Frankfort/Franklin County does not have a Heavy Industrial Zoning designation, nor does it have a Light Industrial Zone. Therefore, an IG zone is appropriate for this property as stated earlier in the definition of an Employment Center.
Yes: Cross – Looney – Luscher – May – Sanderson – Sweger
No: Jackson – Lee – Wright
8. With its historic lineage as a farm and many farms in the area on Duncan Road, agricultural zoning is not inappropriate. This is correct, but irrelevant. The applicant never stated that the property was currently zoned inappropriately as agriculture. They asked for the zone change under the requirements that there have been “significant changes that were not anticipated in the 2016 plan”.
Yes: Cross – Jackson – Lee – Looney – Luscher – May – Sanderson – Sweger – Wright
No: N/A
9. There is nothing that has significantly changed that would not have been anticipated since the adoption of the 2016 Comp Plan. This is not true, yet it also passed. The significant change is that Franklin County has since sold all its industrial property. This was testified to at the meeting whereby documents were provided showing that less than 100 scattered acres of industrial property were available in the county. There are not many places to build manufacturing unless some properties are rezoned as IG and Duncan Rd property is currently the best qualified to be reclassified.
Yes: Cross -Jackson - Looney – Luscher – May – Sanderson – Sweger – Wright
No: Lee
10. The Comp Plan identifies its primary goals as preserving farms and rural lands outside the urban areas and to protect the integrity of the natural environment. This is correct and it passed. However, the subject property is inside the urban growth boundaries; therefore, it is not considered farm or rural lands. This fact is irrelevant to the Duncan Rd rezone decision before the P&Z commission. The more important fact is that one of the goals of the Comp Plan is to “allow growth which is healthy and necessary for the community”.
Yes: Cross – Jackson – Looney – Luscher – May – Sweger – Wright
No: Lee – Sanderson
11. The proposed zone change does not satisfy goal #6 of the Comp Plan to promote the stability, vitality, and preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. This passed also even though there are NO “residential neighborhoods” in Franklin County near the subject property. The neighborhood in which Paul Looney was referring is in Woodford County.
Yes: Cross – Looney – Luscher – May – Sweger
No: Jackson – Lee – Sanderson – Wright
12. The current Comp Plan identifies 600 acres of land available and currently zoned for industrial development and 250 acres currently zoned for industrial use. That is identified as 5x the area as needed for projected demand. This is not true and it did not pass. Mr. Looney stated that they had not received testimony to the contrary, but KCDC had provided testimony about the limited property that is available as IG and provided a spreadsheet that lists those properties. There are less than 100 acres as IG as noted earlier. This fact has been the center of the debate given Franklin County has so little IG property to offer and finds itself not competitive with other counties. This is one of many reasons why 690 Duncan Road makes a good candidate to be rezoned to IG because as a large-scale development, it will use the limited property already identified as a future employment center, create millions of dollars in investment, create hundreds of local jobs, increase our population base, and generate millions of dollars in tax revenues to our local government, public schools, and other qualified entities.
Yes: Looney – May
No: Cross – Jackson – Lee – Luscher – Sanderson – Sweger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Facts for the Fiscal Court to consider for the Duncan Rd rezone request:
A traffic impact study was done in February 2022 that states there will be minimal impact to the existing highway network and that no roadway improvements are recommended to achieve acceptable levels of service. The Ky Transportation Cabinet District 5 as well as the Planning Commissions Traffic engineer concur with the findings of the Traffic Study.
The proposed use of the Duncan Rd. property complies with the general guidelines on page 27 of the Comprehensive Plan:
The primary land use in these areas should be light industrial; enclosed within a building as well as warehousing, professional or office space, or research & development. Further, all our industrial park covenants require that industry is completely enclosed within a building.
General development should occur in areas where water and sewer services are available from public agencies and can meet any additional demand. In the case of Duncan Rd property, it is surrounded by industrial parks where the infrastructure is more than adequate.
No new development shall occur where there is not an adequate water supply and water pressure for fire protection services. Again, there is more than adequate infrastructure.
Employment Centers should be located near major thoroughfares to accommodate excess truck and automobile traffic. 690 Duncan Rd is located approximately 1 mile from the interstate.
The density and character of the development should reflect the existing uses that surround the proposed site. The site is surrounded on three sides by an industrial park and across the road from an electric substation.
Traffic impact studies should be required and were, in fact, conducted for the subject property.
The City, County, and any new prospective business owner should utilize the information, research, and assistance available through the jointly funded Economic Development Authority.
When the P&Z Commission vote was cast and the rezone request was denied, it was thought that the majority of the P&Z Commission could not accurately read a map. Afterwards, Mr. Tim Luscher explained to the State Journal, (reported on July 28, 2022) that “A finding of fact does not mean it is a fact. It just means that we want it read into the record. It could be factual or not factual. In the case of not voting for a finding of fact means we did not want it out as part of the evidence. Just because a property is next to an industrial zone does not mean it should be treated like one until the zone is changed.”
This is a reckless assertion and a practice that should be discontinued. The “Findings of Fact” become part of the record and are forwarded to the Fiscal Court to support the commission’s recommendation. If the commission blatantly admits they only use the facts selectively, the credibility of the P&Z planning commission regarding the rezoning process comes into question.
If facts no longer need to be considered facts, why bother with an update to the comprehensive plan if the Planning Commission can decide to selectively ignore or accept the facts in the plan whenever they want?
In an already polarized situation among those who do not want Duncan Rd rezoned and those who want the Fiscal Court to fully understand the benefits of rezoning Duncan Rd to industrial, we urge the Fiscal Court to heed Robert Hewitt’s recommendation.
Mr. Hewitt has 23 years of experience in government land use planning and based on his experience, training, and education, he is the most qualified to make a recommendation. His assessments and evaluations about Duncan Rd should be heeded and valued. He and his team have provided a thorough analysis of the Duncan Rd property and they have the benefit of understanding the impacts of allowing the property to be built as Industrial. This will enable the Fiscal Court members to evaluate the true Findings of Fact and weigh the positives against the negatives as it relates to allowing the subject property to be rezoned.
Comentarios