Residents’ lawsuit puts West Washington Street rezoning on hold
The Glasgow City Council tabled a vote on rezoning a West Washington Street property, where a 75-unit senior housing complex could be developed.
GLASGOW, Ky. — The Glasgow City Council voted Monday to delay a decision on a proposed zoning change for a West Washington Street property while a lawsuit challenging the Planning Commission’s recommendation remains pending.
The approximately 2.94-acre property at 318 W. Washington St. is owned by the Barren County Fiscal Court and contains the historic Howard Clinic building, which formerly housed the Barren County Health Department.
The Fiscal Court has agreed to allow the Glasgow Housing Authority to work with Wabuck Development to pursue funding for a senior housing project. If funded and built, the project would replace the former health department building with a three-story structure containing 75 one-bedroom apartments for seniors.
Brennan Crain
The proposed complex could not be built under the property’s current zoning. The requested change would allow multifamily housing, but developers have not submitted a formal development plan for the property.
The Joint City-County Planning Commission recommended rezoning the property from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and OP (Office and Professional) to R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) following a public hearing Aug. 17.
Six residents subsequently filed an appeal in Barren Circuit Court, arguing the commission failed to meet Kentucky’s legal requirements for recommending the zoning change. They have also raised concerns about the development’s size, traffic and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Brennan Crain
The Planning Commission and Glasgow Housing Authority have asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the residents filed it before the City Council made a final decision on the rezoning request.
The motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing Oct. 19.
Councilmembers raise concerns
Councilwoman Marna Kirkpatrick said she had received several texts and emails from residents asking the council to reject the rezoning request.
Although Kirkpatrick said she was not opposed to affordable senior housing, she questioned whether the council should make a decision while the lawsuit remains unresolved.
“If a judge says the Commission lacked legal basis to approve that, regardless of what we vote, it would be taken away, right?” Kirkpatrick said.
City Attorney Rich Alexander said the judge’s rulings in the case would control the matter, including whether the Planning Commission’s recommendation could stand.
Alexander also clarified that the council’s role was limited to considering the Planning Commission’s findings and recommendation.
“Really, the only issue that the Council has before it is to either approve or disapprove the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, since they’re the ones that conducted that hearing,” Alexander said.
Councilwoman Elizabeth Shoemaker asked Planning Commission Director Kevin Myatt whether developers could renovate the Howard Clinic to accommodate the proposed senior housing.
Brennan Crain
No renovation plans have been proposed. Judge/Executive Jamie Byrd has said the current proposal calls for demolishing the historic clinic to make way for the new complex.
Barren County Fiscal Court has owned the building for years but attempted to sell it at auction in 2025. The county rejected the bids after they fell short of its $800,000 reserve price.
Myatt said the county, as the property owner, could decide to demolish the building rather than renovate it.
“The Planning Commission, nor this body, can force them to just remodel a building,” Myatt said. “It’s their building. They own it, so they can tear it down today if they want to.”
Myatt also clarified that the building’s 1983 listing on the National Register of Historic Places does not, by itself, prevent demolition. The designation instead makes the property eligible for certain grants.
Councilman Randy Wilkinson said he was inclined to “side with the people more than the government,” citing concerns residents had raised about the proposal. He posed several hypothetical questions, including whether the development would require additional first responders if it were built.
Myatt emphasized that the council was not considering a specific construction plan.
“There’s been no development plan submitted to the Planning Commission. There may not be a development plan submitted to the Planning Commission,” Myatt said. “This is a rezoning of the parcel of ground.”
Kirkpatrick moved to table the rezoning vote until the litigation concludes, and Councilman Tommy Burris seconded the motion. The council approved the motion, with Councilman Terry Bunnell casting the lone dissenting vote.
There is no set timeline for when the judge is expected to rule on the matter.
