[1. O-284-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LOUISVILLE/ JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REDUCTION OF BOUNDARIES BY THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE OF A TRACT OF LAND TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 5.555 ACRES LOCATED AT 7302 BROWNSBORO ROAD, RETURNING SAID TRACT TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE FORMER COUNTY OF JEFFERSON. Action Required By: December 10, 2025 Sponsors: Paula McCraney (I-7) ]

GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THIS EVENING IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REDUCTION OF BOUNDARIES BY THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE OF A TRACT OF LAND TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES, LOCATED AT 70 302 BROWNSBORO ROAD, RETURNING SAID TRACT TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE FORMER COUNTY OF JEFFERSON. I NEED A MOTION. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED. WE HAVE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY TREVOR FEASTER HERE WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS, AS WELL AS THE MAYOR, MAYOR CARTER, WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? I CAN START JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU THE VERY BASICS, AND THEN PERHAPS MAYOR CARTER CAN GIVE SOME MORE DETAILS. TRAVIS FEASTER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. SO WE RECEIVED THIS MATTER, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST MONDAY. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS MAY BE THE FIRST REDUCTION OF BOUNDARY SINCE MERGER IN LOUISVILLE METRO. I THINK OF IT AS THE

[00:35:05]

OPPOSITE OF AN ANNEXATION. SO TYPICALLY WE SEE SUBURBAN CITIES ANNEXING ADJOINING PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, SAINT MATTHEWS J-TOWN EXPANDING THEIR BORDERS TO TAKE IN MORE PROPERTIES AND THEN ABSORB MORE TAXES AND PROVIDE MORE SERVICES TO THOSE PROPERTIES. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE. SO THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE ITS BOUNDARIES TO ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF ACRES, WOULD LEAVE OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE AND BE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME THAT TECHNICALLY EVERYTHING'S INCORPORATED BECAUSE A MERGER, AND THAT GETS COMPLICATED. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WITHIN THE USD. IT'D BE LOUISVILLE METRO GENERAL OUTSIDE OF THE USD, NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OTHER CITY.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THE DEADLINE IS REALLY TIGHT HERE. WE ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS.

IT'S WORDED A LITTLE BIT ODDLY, BUT IN SHORT, THIS HAS TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY AND GETS A COUNCIL FOR A FINAL VOTE IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. AND OTHERWISE, AS WAS ALLUDED TO, THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, BROWNSBORO PLACE IS HERE AND COULD PROBABLY TALK MORE ABOUT WHY THEY'RE WANTING TO TO DO THIS. WELL HELLO EVERYBODY. WE WE WANTED TO HOLD ON. HOLD ON. PRESIDENT OR MAYOR CARTER, HOLD ON A SECOND BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY AND THEN WE'LL GET TO YOU IF THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. GO. GO AHEAD, MR. PRESIDENT. TRAVIS, JUST SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, AND ANYONE WATCHING UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE UNLIKE ANY OTHER ANNEXATION SITUATION, ANNEXATION WERE REQUIRED TO VOTE. YES. SO THE FACT THAT COMES BEFORE US IS JUST A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. WE COULD ALL VOTE NO. AND THE END RESULT IS THE OUTCOME WOULD STILL BE YES. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT OR INCORRECT? IT'S CORRECT THAT WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THIS. NOT ALL ANNEXATIONS ARE FORCED ON US, BUT THERE'S A THERE'S A THRESHOLD THAT MOST PLACES CAN MEET. SO BUT GENERALLY, YES, THERE IS MORE DISCRETION HERE THAN IN MOST ANNEXATIONS WE'VE SEEN. SO IF WE WERE TO REJECT THIS FOR SOME REASON, THIS CITY WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO OWN AND MAINTAIN THIS PROPERTY. CORRECT. SO THEY DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, BUT IT WOULD STAY WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES AND THEY'D BE, YOU KNOW, REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT THEY CURRENTLY DO MISUSE THE TERM OWN WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES AND MAINTAIN IT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM LOUISVILLE THAT KNOWS? I MEAN, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE ALWAYS ASKED ON ANNEXATIONS PRIOR TO THE CHANGING OF THE STATUTES THAT REQUIRED US TO ACCEPT THOSE. ONE OF MY GREATEST CONCERNS AS DISTRICT 26 COUNCIL PERSON WAS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE FINANCIAL WHAT WE'RE GIVING UP. YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN A SUBDIVISION MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED TO J-TOWN, MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE WHEN'S THE LAST TIME WE PAVED THE ROADS? WHAT'S THE ROAD CONDITION? YOU KNOW, IF WE'VE RECENTLY PAVED THEM, THEN WE'RE PAYING FOR THOSE FOLKS. WE PAID FOR IT, AND THEN THEY'RE MOVING OVER TO J-TOWN. WHAT IS THE OCCUPATIONAL TAXES WE'RE GOING TO BE GIVING UP FROM OUR FROM OUR REGISTRIES? THAT WOULD GO TO J-TOWN, WHEN ROADS, FOR INSTANCE, WEREN'T PAVED. MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT'S IT GOING TO COST TO PAVE THEM AND WHEN DO THEY DO? AND ONE THEORY BEING. IF THE ROADS ARE IN TERRIBLE CONDITION AND IT WAS GOING TO COST HALF $1 MILLION TO, TO, TO TO FIX THEM AND THEY WERE GOING TO, THAT HALF MILLION DOLLARS WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. ONE ARGUMENT WAS ALWAYS, ALL RIGHT, GREAT. GET IT OFF OUR BOOKS AND SEND IT OVER TO J-TOWN. I'M JUST PICKING ON J-TOWN UNDER THIS SCENARIO WITH THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THAT THEY WANT TO GIVE TO THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, IS THERE ANY EXPENSE INVOLVED WITH IT, ANY COSTS THAT THAT WE KNOW THAT WE CAN AMORTIZE AND KNOW WHAT KIND OF FINANCIAL SITUATIONS WE'RE PUTTING OURSELVES INTO ON AN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE BASIS OR WHATEVER ELSE. SO THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT I CAN GIVE YOU AS FAR AS A HARD AND FAST NUMBERS. HERE'S WHAT I CAN SAY. WE ASKED THE SAME GROUP OF AGENCIES, YOU KNOW, MSD, OMB, PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. NOW THAT'S NOT REQUIRED. OUR STATUTE SAYS ANNEXATIONS. YOU GET MORE TIME WITH ANNEXATIONS. BUT THREE OF THE FOUR WERE ABLE TO TO WEIGH IN. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM PUBLIC WORKS YET, BUT I CAN EXPLAIN WHY IN A SECOND. ALL THOSE AGENCIES SAW MINIMAL IMPACT. FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE DOESN'T HAVE ZONING DISCRETION, SO THESE PEOPLE ARE EFFECTIVELY UNDER LOUISVILLE METRO ZONING CONTROL ANYWAY. FROM A OMB PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS CURRENTLY AN UNINHABITED LOT. THE STATUTE IS SPECIFIC. THERE'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR INHABITED, BUT THIS IS UNINHABITED PROPERTY. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S GENERATING VIRTUALLY NOTHING. IF IT WERE TO BE DEVELOPED, METRO WOULD COLLECT SOME SMALL AMOUNT OF TAX FROM FROM THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNLESS IT WERE TO REZONE OF COURSE, BUT IT'S ZONED R4. THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION, A PLAN APPROVED IN 2023 THAT WOULD ALLOW EIGHT RESIDENTIAL LOTS HERE. AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD NOT BE MUCH, BUT IT'D BE SOME SMALL POSITIVE GAIN FOR METRO. AS FAR AS ROAD NETWORK GOES, THERE'S CURRENTLY NOT ANY INTERNAL CIRCULATION.

THERE IS AN MSD FACILITY THAT WAS DECOMMISSIONED, AND THEY DO HAVE SOME ASSETS THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE. THEY HAVE WHAT APPEARS TO MAYBE BE A GRAVEL ROAD. I HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE, SO GOOGLE MAPS WOULD BE OUT OF DATE, BUT IT'S A MINIMAL PATH THAT MSD MAINTAINS PER THEIR EASEMENTS AND OTHERWISE. IT'S OFF BROWNSBORO ROAD, WHICH IS A STATE ROAD. SO REALLY NO

[00:40:03]

OBVIOUS FINANCIAL OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF METRO. OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, SO LMPD ALREADY SERVES THIS SITE. POTENTIALLY. IF LOUISVILLE FIRE WERE TO MAKE A RUN, I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH WITH ANCHORAGE MIDDLETOWN.

SO THAT MIGHT BE, AGAIN, SOME SPECULATIVE, VERY MINOR COST TO A METRO AGENCY, BUT NO IMMEDIATE IMPACT. AND IF THERE IS LIKELY TO BE ONE, IT'S PROBABLY A VERY SMALL TAX BENEFIT TO METRO FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF WHAT MIGHT BE DEVELOPED HERE. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THIS AREA ZONED FOR? ZONED R4. SO JUST STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IS THIS CLOSE TO MSD'S HIGH CREEK FACILITY? GOOD QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE THEY HAVE A, I THINK A PREVIOUS PUMP STATION THAT WAS DECOMMISSIONED ON SITE AND SOME A SMALLER SORT OF REMAINING ITEM. LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL THEIR COMMENTS REAL QUICK. I FORGET EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S CALLED, BUT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW CLOSE THE HEIGHTS CREEK FACILITY IS TO MAYOR CARTER. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT FOR US, PLEASE? THAT THAT IS GOOSE CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT MSD CALLS THAT FACILITY, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT'S LEFT THERE IS A PUMPING STATION. AND I'M NOT EVEN REALLY SURE WHAT THAT PUMPING STATION DOES. OR USED TO BE A TREATMENT PLANT DOWN THERE THAT SERVICED THIS CITY FOR MSD, BUT WE'RE HOOKED INTO THE REGULAR SEWER SYSTEM LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE AROUND HERE NOW. SO IT'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH FLOOD PROTECTION WITH THAT PUMPING STATION IS DOWN THERE NOW. PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, HAD HAVE YOU ALL RECEIVED ANY INTEREST FROM ANY DEVELOPERS? NO. WE DID HAVE THE ONE DEVELOPER THAT, YOU KNOW, GOT THOSE PLANS APPROVED BACK IN 2023, AND HE WAS NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH ORDINANCES THAT WERE IN PLACE WITH THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, BEING HOME RULE CITIES, THERE WASN'T A LOT THAT WE COULD DO ABOUT IT PERSONALLY, BUT IT COULD HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND LAWSUITS WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ALREADY LIVING HERE. AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE WENT AHEAD AND STARTED THIS PROCESS. AND ANOTHER THING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A ROAD IN THE FLOODPLAIN TO SERVICE THESE HOMES. AND WE THOUGHT THAT THE TAX BENEFIT THAT WE WERE GOING TO RECEIVE WAS NOT GOING TO OUTWEIGH WHAT THE ROAD MAINTENANCE COST WOULD BE. SINCE WE'VE PASSED THIS ORDINANCE. SO THE DEVELOPER GAVE UP AND HE SOLD THE PIECE OF PROPERTY TO ONE OF OUR LONG TERM RESIDENTS HERE THAT OWNS THE ORIGINAL FARMHOUSE THAT USED TO BE PART OF THIS PROPERTY. AND HE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY PLANS TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT AT ALL. BUT WE HAD ALREADY PASSED THE ORDINANCE BEFORE WE FOUND OUT THAT HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM THE DEVELOPER. SO THERE'S NO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ANYBODY AT THIS TIME. NOW IT'S KIND OF A LOSE FOR US, REALLY. I MEAN, BUT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THE ORDINANCE, SO HERE WE ARE. BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH ALL THE HASSLES OF THE LAWSUITS THAT WERE GOING TO BE FILED, THE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS, BECAUSE THE HOMES WEREN'T BUILT TO THE SPECS, THEY WERE GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE HILLSIDE, AND ALL THE GARAGE DOORS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSES. WHILE OUR ORDINANCES STATE THAT ALL THE GARAGE DOORS HAVE TO BE AT THE REAR OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO BUILD THAT WAY IN THAT SITUATION. AND THEN MSD TOLD HIM THAT HE COULDN'T BUILD A BRIDGE AT THE ORIGINAL ENTRANCE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT IN BECAUSE IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. AND HE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH MSD ON THAT AND FINALLY GOT APPROVAL FROM THE STATE TO USE MSD SERVICE ROAD TO BUILD ON, WHICH IS A VERY DANGEROUS ENTRANCE TO BEGIN WITH. SO ERIC CARTER, I'VE GOT A I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU IF THAT'S OKAY, SIR.

YEAH. I IN LISTENING TO YOU, YOU RAISE THE ISSUE OF THERE WAS CONCERNS OF YOUR CITIZENS WITH THE WITHIN YOUR CITY ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT BE DEVELOPED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GARAGES IN THE FRONT VERSUS GARAGES IN THE BACK. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CONCERN OF LITIGATION.

AND SO WHEN I HEAR THAT THAT YOUR RESIDENTS MIGHT RESULT OR TURN TO LITIGATION BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY FEEL ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, YOU DO REALIZE THAT BY YOUR CITY

[00:45:02]

TURNING THIS OVER TO METRO LOUISVILLE, WE COULD AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU'RE SO THAT YOUR RESIDENTS AND YOUR CITIZENS WITHIN YOUR SMALL CITY ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT. YOU GUYS DO REALIZE THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, RIGHT? YES, YES I DO. AND AND YOUR RESIDENTS AND YOUR CITIZENS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, UNDER LOUISVILLE ZONING, WE MIGHT PUT THINGS IN THERE THAT THAT OTHERWISE YOUR FOLKS WOULD DISAGREE WITH. AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT IF THIS PROCEEDS FORWARD. YOU GUYS DO REALIZE THAT, RIGHT? OH, YES, I DO REALIZE THAT. BUT THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED PRIVATELY. AND THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE RESIDENT THAT BOUGHT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, HE DOESN'T PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING WITH IT, UNDERSTOOD. HE DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING. HE'S HE'S A VERY WEALTHY PERSON, AND HE DOES NOT WANT ANYTHING BUILT BEHIND HIS HOUSE. AND THOSE HOMES WERE GOING TO BACK RIGHT UP TO HIS PROPERTY, WHICH WHERE HIS HOME IS SITUATED ON THE PROPERTY, ON HIS LOT, HIS ORIGINAL LOT. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE TO THE BACK OF THOSE HOMES THAT WERE GOING TO BE BUILT. THERE. I'VE GOT NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT, YOU KNOW, HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 2020. I WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY NOT VOTED ON THIS ORDINANCE OR, OR SPENT THE MONEY TO HAVE THE SURVEY DONE. AND EVERYTHING THAT WE WENT THROUGH TO GET THIS PASSED, IF WE KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO PURCHASE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT IT BUT AFTER RUNNING IT BY OUR COMMISSION, ALL THE COMMISSIONERS EXCEPT FOR ONE FELT THAT IT WAS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD REAR ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD AND CAUSE A BUNCH OF LEGAL PROBLEMS AGAIN. SO THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED TO KEEPING THE ORDINANCE IN PLACE. COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, MAYOR CARTER, THAT YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT ACKERSON JUST STATED. MY FEAR FOR OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE IS THAT IF IT TURNS INTO PROPERTY FOR LOUISVILLE METRO, WE, OF COURSE HAVE ALL THE ZONING RIGHTS AND COULD APPROVE SOMETHING THAT YOUR RESIDENTS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT PROBABLY BUY INTO AND OR AND WOULD NOT HAVE A SAY IN.

AND SO IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD REVOKE YOUR ORDINANCE? BECAUSE I'M HEARING YOU SAY THAT YOU YOU APPROVE THE ORDINANCE BEFORE HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. AND IN RETROSPECT, MAYBE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT. ISN'T THERE A WAY THAT YOU COULD REVOKE YOUR ORDINANCE OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD CALL IT OR RECALL IT OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BECAUSE I THINK THE UNDERLYING REAL MESSAGE HERE IS ONCE LOUISVILLE METRO GETS A HOLD OF THE PROPERTY AND IT IT TRULY BELONGS TO LOUISVILLE METRO. THAT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COULD LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THAT YOUR ORDINANCES THAT ARE IN PLACE NOW PROHIBITS. SO I THROW IT TO YOU TO ASK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF KEEPING THE PROPERTY. OH, I WOULD BE WILLING TO KEEP THE PROPERTY MYSELF, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE SUPPORT OF OUR COMMISSION ON THAT ISSUE. LET ME. MAY I ASK TRAVIS A QUESTION, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN? EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE COUNTY ATTORNEY HERE THAT WANTS TO CLARIFY SOME COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE, COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY. AND IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE JUST GOING TO ASK ME A QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BETTER IF I GO AHEAD AND SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY FIRST? MAYBE THAT QUESTION IS STILL RELEVANT. OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE DOES NOT HAVE ZONING AUTHORITY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY WOULD NOT BE THE DETERMINER THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ZONING. WE WOULD HAVE THE ZONING RIGHTS AND ALL THE PRIVILEGES THAT COME WITH THAT. CORRECT. BUT, BUT BUT THAT REFLECTS THE PRESENT SITUATION AS WELL. THEY THEY ARE NOT ONE OF THE SUBURBAN CITIES WITH ZONING AUTHORITY. SO IT'S OUR DECISION TODAY. AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS PASSES IT, THE ZONING WOULD STILL LIE WITH LOUISVILLE METRO. IF THERE WERE A ZONE CHANGE PROPOSED. NOW, THEY MAY HAVE IN THEIR ORDINANCES SOME DESIGN RESTRICTIONS AND THINGS THAT WOULDN'T APPLY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. THEIR ORDINANCE THAT RESTRICTS CERTAIN. LIKE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE GARAGES AND BUILDING A BRIDGE AND ALL OF THAT. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ONE SAY IN THE MATTER. NO. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE KENTUCKY

[00:50:05]

LEAGUE OF CITIES, WHEN I TALKED TO THEIR ATTORNEY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, IF ANY OF OUR CITY ORDINANCES IN OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE ARE ENFORCED, THEY HAVE TO BE ENFORCED BY THE NEIGHBORS IF THEY TOOK. IF A NEIGHBOR TAKES A NEIGHBOR TO COURT, THEN THAT DECISION WILL STAND. BUT IN RETROSPECT, ALL LOUISVILLE METRO ORDINANCES OVERRIDE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE THAT THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE ITSELF CANNOT ENFORCE THESE ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE. THEY HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE NEIGHBORS, THE RESIDENTS THAT ACTUALLY LIVE HERE. THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING I GOT FROM THE ATTORNEY AT THE KENTUCKY LEAGUE OF CITIES. BUT I REALLY, TRULY DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. IF ANYTHING, IT MIGHT GET CHANGED, THE ZONING MIGHT GET CHANGED, AND HE LETS A CELL TOWER GET PUT ON. THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN OUR LOFTS WOULD ACTUALLY BE YOUR GAIN IN THIS SITUATION. SO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU GUYS WOULD BE OPPOSED OF IT. I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THAT IF WE IF I WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY KNOWN THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO SELL THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THE NEIGHBOR, I WOULD HAVE JUST LEFT IT IN THE CITY OF OLD BROWNSBORO PLACE. WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THE ORDINANCE, AND AND I DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT OF OUR COMMISSION TO TO REVERSE THIS DECISION. WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT. SO I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ATTORNEYS A QUESTION AGAIN, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN. SURE. TRAVIS, IF WE DENY THIS REQUEST, WOULD IT AUTOMATICALLY STAY WITHIN OLD BROWNSBORO ROAD'S PURVIEW? YES. SO UNDER THE STATUTE, IF IF METRO, YOU KNOW, OBJECTS AND DECLARES ITS INTENTION, THEN WE WOULD NEED AN AMENDMENT TO DO SO. BUT BUT YES, IT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM REDUCING THE BOUNDARIES. THAT BEING SAID, THE STATUTE ALSO REQUIRES THEM TO SORT OF PASS A A SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING THIS. SO IF EVEN IF METRO SAYS YES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THIS WILL HAPPEN, THEY STILL NEED TO GRANT THEIR OWN INTERNAL FINAL APPROVAL. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT BROWNSBORO LAST CHANCE TO ABANDON THIS PROCESS, THAT THEY DECIDED TO GO ANOTHER DIRECTION AFTER WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK. MY NEXT QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TABLE THIS OR ARE WE UNDER A TIME CONSTRAINT? WE ARE UNDER A TIME CONSTRAINT AND I NEED TO PASS THE MIC TO PRESIDENT ACKERSON. YEAH.

COUNCILMAN, WE ARE UNDER A TIME CONSTRAINT, SEVERE TIME CONSTRAINT HERE. AND WHAT I'M HEARING, THE MAYOR I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S GOING TO COST US MONEY. IT'S NOT TAKING MONEY OFF OUR TAX ROLLS, WHICH IS ALWAYS A CONCERN, ESPECIALLY WITH BUDGET SHORTFALLS THAT ARE LIKELY COMING IN THE FUTURE. SO I DON'T SEE IT AS A NEGATIVE TO US AT ALL. SO I'M GOING TO I'M I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. AND WHAT I'VE HEARD THE MAYOR, MAYOR CARTER SAY IS THIS IS AT PRESENT THAT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH NO INTENTION OF SELLING IT OR USING IT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. AND SO THEY'VE GOT THAT PEACE OF MIND. THE CONCERN FOR THEM WILL ULTIMATELY BE SOMEDAY IF THAT PERSON PASSES AWAY AND THIS PROPERTY PASSES THROUGH THEIR ESTATE AND, AND THE HEIRS SELL IT, OR IF THAT PROPERTY OWNER MOVES AND CHANGES HIS MIND OR WHATEVER ELSE, THAT'S ALL UP IN THE AIR. SO I SEE NO REASON FOR CITY OF LOUISVILLE NOT TO ACCEPT THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO COST TO US. AND AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE RISK THEY TAKE BASED UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER DECISION IN THE FUTURE ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS, COULD YOU PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA BACK ON SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED WITH VOTING, PLEASE? I HAD A QUESTION FOR TRAVIS. WHILE WE'RE. WHILE WE'RE KILLING TIME. YEAH. SO YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM ONE OF THE AGENCIES. I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS PUBLIC WORKS. WAS IT JUST IN TERMS OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO IMPACT? I THINK SO, I MEAN, IT'S ALSO A MUCH SHORTER WINDOW THAN WE TYPICALLY TYPICALLY GIVE THESE AGENCIES IN AN ANNEXATION CONTEXT. BUT YEAH, THE ONLY ROADWAY THAT'S RELEVANT TO THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS BROWNSBORO ROAD. THAT'S A STATE ROAD OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A QUORUM TO VOTE. CLERK. WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

[00:55:03]

WILL I BE NEEDED TO VOTE FOR THIS? OKAY I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN THE SYSTEM, SO PLEASE RECORD ME AS A YES. VOTING IS OPEN. CAN WE? MEMBER HAWKINS. YES. CAN YOU REMEMBER MCCRANEY. YES.

CAN YOU REMEMBER REID. YES. CHAIR. YES. CHAIR. YOU HAVE SIX YES VOTES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT PASSES. SO THIS WILL GO ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THANK YOU. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS

[Adjournment Note: Agendas are followed at the discretion of the Chair. While an item may be listed, it does not mean all items will be heard and/or acted upon by the Committee.]

THIS EVENING. SO THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. MAYOR CARTER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DO THIS. THANK YOU. SEE YOU AT YOUR MEETING. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Pending Legislation

Nov 18, 2025 Government Oversight/Audit and Appointments Committee

Pending Legislation

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item