By Aubrey Kimble, The Edge
Law suits filed over Fiscal Court’s flip of +1,000 acres from ag to development could hinge on how court defines plaintiffs’ legal standing under HB321
Still of Carr Acres from Central Kentucky Business Park Authority promotional video
MADISON COUNTY—Two lawsuits recently filed in the Madison County Circuit Court look set to test the constitutionality of a recent update to state regulation over local land use law.
The provision, inserted into KRS 100.347 by HB 321 in 2025, states that in addition to being injured or aggrieved, plaintiffs in zoning appeal cases must now also own property in the “same zone” as the property involved in the decision.
Tom “Fitz” FitzGerald, of counsel for the Kentucky Resources Council, told The Edge this new language does not clarify whether a plaintiff’s property must be in the same zone before or after a rezoning takes effect.
“That failure to define what ‘same zone’ means is constitutionally suspect because you can’t make up vague terms that people’s rights depend on and not clarify what it is that you mean,” FitzGerald said in an interview.
This lack of clarity could affect how the County Circuit Court views a zoning challenge, filed in mid-September. The suit argues the Fiscal Court ignored the County’s Comprehensive Plan when it rezoned more than 722 acres off Lexington Road, collectively known as Carr Acres, from agriculture to industrial.
The second suit muddied by the new law was filed late last month, and lists as a key argument that the Court used zoning classifications that are no longer in use when it voted to rezone land off Moran Mill Road.
Plaintiffs in both suits have land near or directly adjacent to the rezoned properties, but their legal standing in light of the new law is unclear. The legal actions follow on the heels of the Fiscal Court’s recent rezoning of more than 1,300 acres for development in the span of about three weeks.
‘Not aligned’ with Comprehensive Plan
In the first suit, filed Sept. 9 by members of the nonprofit citizens action group, Preserve Madison County, the challenge is against County Ordinance 2026-004, which rezoned the 722.14 acre Carr farm off of Lexington Road from agriculture to industrial.
PMC’s central argument is that the rezoning conflicts with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map which calls for “balancing growth with agricultural preservation”, and specifies that development in the northern part of the county, where the Carr farm is located, should be residential, not industrial.
Savannah Westerfield, a member of PMC, said the group consulted with a lawyer before filing the appeal requesting the Circuit Court to reverse the zone change.
“All we’ve been asking for is [that the Fiscal Court] just plan things,” Westerfield told The Edge in an interview. “To plan smart growth, to plan the development. To not just plop [development] here and there and wherever you can get someone to sell their farm.”
The suit also alleges there are discrepancies in the initial zone change application, a concern first raised by PMC member Mary Lois Kearns during the Aug. 11 meeting where the Fiscal Court voted to rezone the property.
Specifically, PMC claims the application included incorrect deed-record dates, and that it was signed by the property owner’s attorney rather than the owner. The group also said that the property’s seller, Carr Acres LLC, was in bad standing with the Secretary of State at the time of the application.
‘No such zoning classifications’
The plaintiffs in a second case naming the Fiscal Court as a defendant, say the Fiscal Court’s Aug. 25th passage of Ordinance 2026-009, which rezoned 347 acres at 200 Moran Mill Road from agriculture to single-family residential, should have no legal effect because it used outdated classifications. This second case was filed in the County Circuit Court on Sept. 23.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the change, saying the existing zone was both R-7 (rural agriculture) and UC-7 (urban corridor agriculture) and that the proposed change of UC-1 (urban corridor single family residential), was in alignment with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
The plaintiffs, Travis Barnes and Jill Stinson, argue that none of the three the zoning classifications (R-7, UC-7, or UC-1) referenced in the Ordinance exist in the County’s current zoning regulation. These classifications are a part of an older zoning system, and do not appear in the land development and subdivision regulations adopted by the County in Sept. 2023, according to the law suit.
If the zoning classifications do not exist, say the plaintiffs, the Fiscal Court cannot legally approve the rezoning request.
Both plaintiffs own property near the Moran Mill property. Stinson filed suit on behalf of herself and also on behalf of the Curry Home Place Testamentary Trust, for which she is a trustee.
Barnes and Stinson’s case also states they received only 13 days notice about the Planning Commission’s hearing on the zone change request, rather than the 14 days required by state law.
They are asking the Circuit Court to require the County to certify the complete record of the rezoning within 30 days of the complaint being filed. They also are asking the Circuit Court to prevent development, building, grading or subdivision permits while the case is still pending.
Data center developer leveraging HB321
In both cases, whether the plaintiffs have legal standing will depend on how the Court views the language in HB321 around who has the right to appeal zoning changes.
“If you’re a residential landowner and you live in a residential zone, and I come in and I request a zone amendment to take the property right next door to you and turn it into commercial or industrial property, you’re no longer in the same zone. But you’re probably the most adversely affected by the decision [because] you live right next door,” the KRC’s FitzGerald said in the interview.
In August, the Kentucky Lantern reported that a data center developer is using HB321 to challenge a zoning appeal mounted by citizens in Franklin, the county seat of Simpson County, who oppose that county’s planning commission’s preliminary approval of the developer’s plans to build a 200-acre data center campus with on-site natural gas-fired power generation.
The developer argues that the citizens group doesn’t represent anyone in the same zone as the proposed data center.
That case is expected to be decided in the Simpson County Circuit Court this month, according to the article in the Lantern.
Origins of clause unclear
Just who inserted the language into what had been a bill many saw as favorable to citizens remains a mystery.
“The initial bill was presented as favorable to every day citizens, and had good things in it like land use training for planning and zoning commissioners,” Westerfield told The Edge in a follow-up interview. “But then in the last hour, the bill was changed to limit who could appeal zoning changes, and it was no longer beneficial to every day Kentuckians. We had been supportive of it, but then it was no longer favorable.”
Westerfield et al also filed suit against the Fiscal Court in 2024 to halt the development of a distillery in the northern end of the County, the approval of which PMC said ran counter to the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
“It felt like it was directed at us, but the number of appeals filed by citizens has been growing all across the state,” Westerfield said.
She noted that even without passage of HB321, that there has been so much citizen action against local land use decisions is meaningful.
“Even before this bill’s language, it’s not like appealing zone changes is accessible to anyone and everybody. It’s not like every day Kentuckians can afford the $50,000 legal bill to challenge their local planning commissions,” Westerfield said.
To fund both their case against the distillery and their latest law suit, Westerfield said, “We’re fundraising like crazy. A dollar here a dollar there. But we’ve been able to garner support from the community. It makes you think—if people are willing to help us, then it suggests that the zone changes are overreaching. Especially in the suit against the industrial park, the funds are coming from across the entire county, not just from people who are directly impacted.”
PMC’s case against the distillery is still tied up in litigation, after having been at first dismissed from the Circuit Court by the Hon. Cole Adams Maier, then returned to her court by the state appellate court who said Maier was wrong to dismiss the case. The appellate court ruled against the distiller’s argument that HB321 should mean the case be tossed altogether, since PMC filed suit prior to the law’s passage.
Court dates in both the Carr Acres, LLC and the Moran Mill law suits have yet to be set.
Whitney McKnight contributed to this report.
