Latest news with #KentuckyRevisedStatutes
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Laurel County Board of Education requests for state to waive 3 school days
Following the recent decision to end the 2024-2025 school year, the Laurel County Board of Education voted to request that the Kentucky Board of Education waive three days toward the school calendar. The board met in special session Wednesday afternoon to vote on the matter. The motion to approve the request was made by Board Chair Tony Krahenbuhl and seconded by member Brice Hicks. In light of the matter being the only new business agenda item, the meeting then adjourned. The district's call to end the school year came following the EF4 tornado which struck Laurel and Pulaski counties on the night of Friday, May 16. The decision was announced Tuesday, May 20. On Monday, May 19, district administrators began communicating with Kentucky Commissioner of Education Robbie Fletcher, Ed.D., as well as multiple offices at the Kentucky Department of Education. Administrators did so to gain a better understanding of the district's allowances under current legislation regarding the school district's options after the tornado. Following such conversations, board members felt that suspending the school year was ultimately the best option for the district. The district had only eight school days remaining. During the meeting, Superintendent Denise Griebel said no student or staff deaths were reported as a result of the tornado. However, according to Griebel, over 30 staff and faculty members and "numerous students and families" sustained "significant damage or total destruction of property." "Almost everyone has been impacted by this storm," Griebel stated. Supt. Griebel shared that, while staff and faculty are saddened they will not formally see students again, family resource and youth services centers will remain open to coordinate services for affected students and families. School counselors will also provide services as needed. Per Kentucky Revised Statutes and federal legislation, staff and faculty members are required to work their contract days, allowing students to come to their school to pick up their belongings. "Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with our community and all those impacted by this severe weather event," said Griebel.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ethics Board addresses complaints by mayor, city employee
Two complaints, both of which were filed by city officials through the City of London Ethics Board, were addressed at the board's meeting last Wednesday. Complaint 2025-04 was filed by Mayor Randall Weddle during the first week of April. It was filed against council members Kelly Greene, Judd Weaver, Anthony Ortega, and Justin Young. City Council Attorney Conrad Cessna represented the council members at the board meeting. Weddle's complaint pertains to the council's special-called meeting on March 20, and an ordinance he claims was violated. 'Our complaint was to showcase, when we wrote [Ordinance 2023-10] when I first came into the office, that council had taken so much out of the ethics ordinance written by the city attorney, it kind of removed all accountability from them,' Weddle commented. 'It's more to shed light to the public that there is no ordinance to hold your elected officials here accountable.' Weddle, City Attorney Larry Bryson, City Clerk Katelin McPeek, and council members Stacy Benge and Holly Little were unable to attend the Mar. 20 council meeting. 'It was an illegal meeting; it just was,' Weddle stated. 'The KRS is plain.' Weddle's complaint was ultimately ruled outside the board's jurisdiction. 'Mayor Weddle said himself that the board lacks jurisdiction,' Board Member Derek House stated. 'It was expected and I wasn't surprised,' Weddle commented on the decision. Weddle hopes to see the current division stop soon. 'I hope, in the end, they will take their focus off of trying to get rid of me and put it back on what we're here for, and that's to get about the city business,' he said. Young shared that London Police officers hand-delivered the mayor's complaint to each of the council members which it referred to. 'It was a frivolous complaint by the mayor that was found to be invalid,' he commented. 'There was nothing done wrong to have a complaint.' Young went on to say he was satisfied with the finding of the board. 'I think it will show the public that we're doing the right thing,' he said. 'They did the right thing,' Greene said on the matter. Ortega declined to comment at this time. Complaint 2025-03 was filed by City Public Relations Officer Bryan Johnson against City Council Member Judd Weaver. Although it only pertained to Weaver, the other council members present also sat in for the discussion. Johnson explained that he received a phone call from Weaver on March 20, following the meeting, regarding a Facebook post he made quoting KRS (Kentucky Revised Statutes). 'He called me and asked me if the mayor okayed that,' Johnson stated. 'It was my personal Facebook and the mayor wasn't aware of it. The mayor's never required me to do anything through him.' Johnson claimed Weaver was angry, telling him he 'did not want to see anything happen' to Johnson's family. 'He tried to say that I might have violated the social media policy from the city, but I was part of the team that helped review that policy as it was being created, so I knew what was in it,' Johnson said. Weaver claimed the conversation was 'taken the wrong way.' 'I care about him and his family,' Weaver stated. 'It was perceived by him as a threatening conversation, which was not my intention.' Although it was within the jurisdiction of the board, board members ultimately determined that the complaint had 'insufficient factual basis for a violation of the ordinance.' 'The allegations lack significant impact on the public confidence,' said Board Chair Jane Dyche. 'We would like to note that the council, pursuant to KRS 83A.130 does not have any executive authority within the city government.' As for old business, there were three complaints in January — one of which was anonymous. The individual who filed the complaint did not provide a notarized signature, and it was ultimately dismissed for failure to comply with requirements. The board attempted to send the complaint to DJ Freeman of Ohio but it was returned as not deliverable. Regarding Complaint 2025-01, the board found that the complaint 'did not have a clear complainant.' Dyche stated that the board had 'insufficient information to follow through with the complainant,' ruling it out of the jurisdiction of board members. It alleged that there were misdeeds by a Laurel County official. Furthermore, Complaint 2025-02 claimed that misdeeds by Laurel County officials caused the death of Doug Harless — the victim of an London Police officer-involved shooting last Dec. 23. This complaint was also determined to be outside the board's jurisdiction. 'The City of London Board of Ethics does not have the authority to conduct hearings on county employees or elected officials,' Dyche stated. The meeting came to a close following discussion of the search for new board members, as the terms of Dyche, House, and Jim Hayes end this week. The search remained unsuccessful at that time. The Ethics Board only meets when there is a complaint to address. When it does convene, the meetings are held downstairs at the London Community Center.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Many Kentuckians will be barred from challenging land-use decisions in court unless lawmakers act
Unless lawmakers act during the next two days, an arbitrary law will take effect seeking to exclude many Kentuckians from going to circuit court to challenge a broad range of local planning and zoning decisions, including the grant or denial of a rezoning, a variance, a conditional use permit, a cell tower, a subdivision, or revision to a comprehensive plan or zoning regulations. (Getty Images) In a press release announcing the signing of 20 bills passed by the General Assembly, the governor is quoted as stating 'we've been laser focused on addressing the everyday needs of our Kentucky families and communities, and the 20 bills I signed do just that.' Unless you agree that Kentucky families and communities wake up in the morning hoping that their right to statutory judicial review of planning and zoning decisions will be disrupted by the Kentucky legislature, then the passage and signing of House Bill 321 into law were grave misjudgments. The bill as altered by a Senate committee is indeed 'laser focused,' but in a Star Wars way rather than on protecting the rights of Kentucky families and communities. In Gov. Andy Beshear's defense — and that of most of the legislators who voted on HB 321 — the last-minute insertion of the offending language was done without any meaningful public notice or opportunity to debate or study the impact in committee. Before the Senate action, the measure had been an uncontroversial and positive House bill providing additional training for local planning officials, was available. The conversion of a good bill into a direct assault on the judicial appeal rights of the public in planning and zoning matters occurred during the first of two hectic 'concurrence' days before the veto period, after one chamber had already considered and approved the bill. In the two days remaining in the 2025 regular session, the General Assembly could fix this problem by enacting changes that undo the damage caused by HB 321 and restore the statutory right to judicial review. Here's why they should. Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 100 involves many government decisions that can dramatically affect the quality of life in local communities with planning and zoning. It covers final actions of planning commissions, boards of adjustment, counties, and cities with zoning authority, and landmark commissions. It covers a broad range of decisions including the grant or denial of a rezoning, a variance, a conditional use permit, a cell tower, a subdivision, or revision to a comprehensive plan or zoning regulations, or adding or removing a binding element. Before HB 321, any person claiming to be injured or aggrieved by that final action could bring a suit in circuit court within 30 days of that final action seeking court review of whether the action complied with the law. HB 321 will limit that statutory appeal right to 'owners of real property within the zone where the property that is the subject of the final action is located.' Under HB 321 neighborhood associations, renters, homeowners living near properties whose zoning has been changed to commercial or industrial, groups concerned with demolition of historic properties or impacts on public parks, and others injured or aggrieved, would be barred from the statutory right to judicial review of action by local governments and their agencies on land use matters. The right to appeal government decisions on planning and zoning would be limited to persons who are injured and who own land in the same 'zone' as the property that is subject to the government action. The new limit is as arbitrary as it is offensive to the rights of homeowners, renters, neighborhood associations, and civic groups dedicated to historic preservation and parks, among others, treating their economic and other interests as if they are unworthy of protection. HB 321 is a direct affront to Kentuckians in all communities that have adopted planning and zoning. It seeks to deprive them of access to the courts where a local government decision affects their quality of life and the homes they own or rent, unless they own property in the same 'zone' as the property subject to the final action that has caused them harm. HB 321 treats renters, neighborhood associations, and civic groups like second-class citizens, shutting the door to statutory judicial review unless they 'own real property within the zone' that is the subject of the action that has caused injury. Current law requires someone seeking judicial review to be injured or aggrieved, and the new restriction would exclude everyone injured other than property owners in the same 'zone' from seeking review. HB 321 shuts the door on statutory appeals for many property owners as well. A zoning amendment case usually involves a change in the zoning classification of a property. A homeowner in a residential zone could not, under HB 321, challenge a zoning change converting residential property to a commercial or industrial zoning even if the change was next door to the homeowner's property. Many of the most controversial decisions under KRS Chapter 100 occur in the transition area from one zone to another — a landowner in a residential zone that abuts a commercial zone, or a farm owner in an agricultural zone that abuts land rezoned as industrial; yet none of these challenges could be brought under the statute as amended. HB 321 also arbitrarily links the right to judicial review to the zoning status of property owned by the person injured by the government action. Many final decisions under KRS Chapter 100 don't depend on the zoning status of property at all but nevertheless can dramatically affect the quality of life of individuals, neighborhoods and communities. Decisions such as adoption or revisions of comprehensive plans and zoning regulations; approvals of cell towers; imposition and removal of binding elements; granting or denying of conditional use permits or variances; all of these are not focused on the 'zone' and yet could be denied judicial review because of the bill's new limit to judicial appeal for landowners in the same 'zone' as the property that is the subject of the final action. If unrepaired, the message behind HB 321 will be clear — your legislature doesn't care how much a government action under planning and zoning laws may harm you or your family, your quality of life or your community, unless you own property in the same zone as the subject of that government action. No statutory right to ask a court to review the lawfulness of government action would exist when a zoning change occurs next door or down the street, if the rezoned property is no longer in the same zone. Renters, civic groups, neighborhood associations, your statutory right of appeal no longer exists. Finally, HB321 will likely prove to be an ineffective, yet disruptive, effort to chill these appeal rights of many people in communities concerned with government planning and zoning actions. Ineffective, because there is an inherent constitutional right to seek judicial review of government action, arising under Kentucky Constitution Sections 2 and 14, that cannot be abridged by the General Assembly. If HB 321 stands as law and all of those harmed by decisions under planning and zoning laws can no longer access the courts using KRS 100.347 to appeal, the inherent constitutional right of appeal will be available to assure that arbitrary government acts are held to account. The more likely impact of HB 321 will be to significantly disrupt local planning and zoning, causing harm not only to those sought to be barred by this law from appealing, but also to those seeking to develop properties. For if there is no statutory right of appeal, then the 30-day time limit in law to file such appeals will no longer be applicable, and judicial review could occur later in time. HB 321 will not result in fewer land-use appeals; instead, there will likely be the same or even more appeals, some occurring later in time with more disruption to developers, local governments and the public. The General Assembly reconvenes Thursday for two days. There is time to fix this blunder, and to restore the right of all persons injured or aggrieved by a government decision under KRS Chapter 100 to timely seek judicial review of the legality of that government action.
