Planning commission deadlocks 3‑3 on Encompass Health 8‑unit Walnut Street apartment site plan

The Lawrenceburg City Planning Commission voted on a site plan for an eight‑unit multifamily development at 543 Walnut Street after extensive public comment and a staff presentation that the property falls within a zoning overlay that permits residential use.

Staff told commissioners the application (filed with Lane Consultants on 03/06/2026) proposes an eight‑unit building on privately owned lots within the LB district and the city’s Levy overlay district, which staff said allows the proposed residential use. "An application was submitted for site plan review, 03/06/2026, from Lane Consultants for an 8 unit multifamily housing development for the privately owned lots on the Northwest Side Of Walnut Street," the staff member said while summarizing the packet.

The item drew repeated public concern about parking, traffic congestion at the school and park, the downtown gateway appearance and whether the parcel is appropriate for an apartment project. Lisa Barker, owner of Key Real Estate at 525 Walnut Street, told the commission: "I have never been able to utilize my office as a real office because my business has been drowned out by teachers and church goers and funeral people," warning that a new development could exacerbate downtown parking problems. Tim Shields of State Farm also urged caution, saying parking "is a huge issue" for the church, park, school and nearby businesses.

Staff and other speakers explained the commission’s legal role. A staff member said the Levy overlay (in place since 1999) permits residential use on that LB‑zoned parcel and that the commission must apply the code and state law: "We don't have a choice at all but to allow it to be residential," the staff member said when describing the overlay's effect. The staff presentation also said the commission may not consider who will live in the apartments when applying zoning standards and cited a prior ACLU‑related lawsuit in which the city was sued after denying a similar project.

After public comments and questions about parking counts (plans show 8 covered and 8 uncovered parking spaces, for a total of 16 on‑site spaces), a commissioner moved to approve the site plan and the commission took a roll‑call vote. The tally was three yes and three no (Derry Hutcherson—nay; Tim Denning—yes; Owen Cross—nay; Thomas Roulette—aye; Lenny Bridal—aye; Tony Abbott—nay), producing a 3‑3 tie. "My reason for voting no is the safety of the kids in that park because there's more traffic in that alley and the congestion on Walnut Street," the commissioner who voted no said when asked to state their rationale.

Because the vote was tied, the staff member said the application did not pass at the meeting and that the commission would need legal research to determine next steps for a tie vote by the planning commission. Staff said the matter could return to a future meeting after research; commissioners and several public speakers asked that the city consider alternatives, reduced scale, or additional parking if the applicant re‑submits.

The meeting adjourned after the commission closed the item and staff confirmed the commission would be informed of any legal guidance and next steps publicly.