Reposted from the Winchester Sun

‍

At a meeting of the Clark County Fiscal Court on the morning of Wednesday, October 9, the topic of planning and zoning previously highlighted came to attention.

The matter largely concerns comments made by Clark County Magistrate Chris Davis at a meeting of the Winchester-Clark County Planning Commission meeting on September3.

On Thursday, October 3 – exactly one month later – the Clark Coalition presented a position paper disagreeing with many of Magistrate Davis’ comments.   

Speaking at Wednesday’s Fiscal Court meeting during the public comment session was Clark Coalition Executive Director Will Mayer.

Introducing Clark Coalition as “a nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance smart growth, sustainable economic development, and government transparency in Winchester and Clark County,” Mayer referred to the position paper.

Specifically, Mayer noted that the paper also provided research and data as to how to inform growth in the community, and referenced Magistrate Davis’ comments in the meeting. 

“If he had been referring to doing away with multiple, plural ordinances, where that would take us would be obvious. We would just have fewer zoning ordinances,” Mayer said. “The intent is doing away with the zoning ordinance.”

Mayer mentioned other comments at the meeting made by Davis that he felt required attention.

Among them were [Davis's] claim that rent costs were slightly lower in Clark County than Fayette County, which Mayer disagreed with by stating that home sales in Clark County were 32% less than those in Fayette County. 

‍

[Editor's Note: Mr. Mayer addressed Mr. Davis's exaggerated claims about both rent and home prices in Clark County as compared to Fayette County. Mr. Mayer presented data detailing that as of October 2024 median rent in Fayette County is 56.1% higher than in Clark County, and that home prices have averaged 32.3% higher in Fayette than in Clark over the last year].

‍

“I think we need to be honest in our assessment when we’re proposing public policy with what the data are,” he said. “Data is important.”

Mayer also stated that the city of Winchester passed an ordinance earlier in the year dealing with blighted and abandoned property in order to address infill development, a concern brought about by Davis, and stated he felt it was more of a concern related to the city of Winchester and that certain ideas of the public weren’t being fully considered.

“I would draw your attention kindly to the process,” he said. “If a magistrate would like for our joint Planning Commission to review the zoning ordinance or to take any action, that should really originate here at the Fiscal Court with a resolution to do so.”

He added that he hoped any related action could take place in coordination with the city, and that he hoped to focus on policy.

“This is not personal. This is [about] policy, and I don’t want anyone to mistake this as an attack. [This is about accountability]” he said.

Speaking approximately thirty minutes later during Magistrate comments, Davis also referred to the matter.   “I did appear as a private citizen and in my capacity as a citizen although I’m a member of this court. The reason is…[to speak about] housing affordability and availability of housing,” he said. “It is a crisis.”   

Davis reaffirmed that he did not appear at the meeting as a magistrate but rather as a private citizen.

“What I asked the Planning Commission to do as a body was to consider anything that would make the availability of houses and construction of new homes more efficient [and] could streamline the planning process and zoning process and make that amenable to investors,” he added, noting that he gave credit to city for previous efforts. “I am very much in favor of infill development…anybody who [has] done that can attest that it can be a very cumbersome, very difficult and expensive process.”   

He further explained.

“The whole purpose of my appearing before the Commission was to just urge them [to] look at the ordinance…the code that we operate under to come up with a way to streamline that and then take that to Fiscal Court and City Commission. We may not like what we come up with,” said Davis, adding that the Chairman of the Commission acknowledged creating a three-person subcommittee to take similar action.

“I think that’s very encouraging,” he said. “I think it’s an excellent step.”   

Davis then addressed allegations of advocating for the removal of the Winchester-Clark County Planning Commission.

“To anybody who looks at the totality of what I said that night, I don’t think any reasonable person could conclude that I want to do away with planning and zoning…that was taken out of context,” he stated. “I know I think enough about the law that I wouldn’t be going to that body to ask them to make are commendation to do away with planning and zoning.” 

Magistrate Davis presented and read aloud a letter written by attorney Robert L. Gullette Jr. – who serves as Legal Counsel to the Winchester- Clark County Planning Commission.

“At no time did Mr. Davis call for the elimination of the Planning Commission, nor did he make any comment which could reasonably be interpreted to even have insinuated that this was his desire,” stated Gullette, noting that official minutes of the September 3 meeting confirmed such.

“He made suggestions concerning modernization of the existing regulations, a matter which the Commission has been discussing for several months.”  Magistrate Davis concluded by asking that the letter be entered into the record. 

‍

[See our response OpEd: In Both Words and Actions, Davis’s Intent is Clear: Undermine Planning and Zoning in Clark County]

‍