AN OVERFLOW CROWD of about 70 people attended the Jan. 12 Woodford County Fiscal Court meeting, which took up, again, the issue of in-family conveyance. (Photo by Scott White)
By Scott White
Managing Editor
The Woodford County Fiscal Court adopted the Woodford County Planning Commission’s recommended changes, with some immaterial edits, to sections of its ordinances relating to in-family conveyances (IFC) at its Jan. 13 meeting. The final vote was 7-1, with Magistrate Jackie Brown casting the nay vote.
The discussion started in the Committee of the Whole, which preceded the regular meeting, and continued during the regular meeting.
This vote brings to a close the debate on restricting in-family conveyances that began in the fall of 2023 with the Planning Commission’s request that the Fiscal Court enact a moratorium on IFC until the issue could be studied, and reforms made to this controversial transfer of rural land.
The final version is what the Planning Commission approved and sent to the Fiscal Court at its November 2025 meeting, with some immaterial changes adopted by the court.
The new rules on IFC, which are text amendments to Articles II and VII in the ordinances governing the Commission, provide the specifics on a permissible IFC: the land must be zoned A-1; the owner must be a Woodford County resident; the transfer can only be between a parent to a child and a grandparent to a grandchild; the minimum lot size is one-acre for the conveyed parcel and must be along a public road; the primary parcel cannot fall below 30 acres; one IFC can be made from 31-49 acres and two conveyed parcels can be made from any primary parcel 50 acres and above; the conveyed property must be held for 10 years by the child/grandchild and the original parcel must continue to be held by the parent or grandparent for five years before a transfer can be made to a non-family member; and, the conveyance restrictions must be recorded on the plats, prohibiting any future in-family conveyances of those parcels and time restictions for non-family transfers.
These changes are a significant restriction from how an IFC could be made previously. Though he voted against the new IFC rules, Brown said, “(The proposed changes) are in line with what we (the court) intended to do when we created IFCs in 1990. Our intention was to preserve farm land and help farmers’ children stay on the farm.”
The debate on the IFC, including the Committee of the Whole, lasted nearly two hours. Seven citizens from both Versailles and South Woodford County addressed the court, all of whom strongly endorsed passage of the IFC changes. A petition with over 500 signatures supporting the changes was also presented, organized by a new group of farmers and landowners primarily from the southern part of the county, The Farmland Preservation Working Group, which has been meeting for several months.
One of the major concerns of those who spoke during public comment was the fear that the court would further delay action and send the issue back to the Planning Commission.
“(The proposed changes are) a fair compromise to the current and future residents of Woodford County. (They) will ensure that rural land exists for the next generation and will allow property owners to utilize the IFC as it was intended,” South Woodford County resident Natalie Blake said in presenting the petition.
Mary Katherine Gratz, nearly a lifelong resident of Versailles, told the court, “What is crystal clear tonight is that hundreds of residents of the county want action, well-considered, without additional administrative delay. Don’t let this opportunity slip away.”
Mason Creech, 14, who lives on a farm in southern Woodford County, which raises cattle and horses, said via a letter read by her father John, “I hope and expect to farm and live here for the rest of my life and keep our farm a working farm . . . I encourage (the court) to do anything it can to stop putting farmland under concrete.” (Schoolwork precluded her from attending in person.)
Magistrate Liles Taylor, who has long been involved in the issue, presented the court with additional changes to the proposal from the Planning Commission, which were sent to fellow magistrates on the prior Friday night and, along with Judge-Executive James Kay, presented a video explaining the changes to the proposed text amendments, in which the Commission proposed changes not just to the IFC portion, but to conservation districts and rural residential/residual farmland districts as well.
Following his presentation, Magistrate Mary Ann Gill conveyed her frustration that the court might not approve the IFC changes at the meeting. She said Taylor’s proposed changes would cause at least two to three months of further delay and accused Kay and Taylor of “trying to control the narrative” of the debate by putting out the video without involving other magistrates.
Taylor and Kay both pushed back, saying what was being proposed dealt primarily with rural residential and conservation districts, not IFC, and that the changes to the IFC were immaterial and could be adopted without need to send it back to the Commission.
This led to Gill requesting County Attorney Alan George to identify the Taylor proposals as being material, needing to go back to the Commission, or immaterial, not needing to go back. Kay adjourned the meeting for about 20 minutes to allow George and Assistant County Attorney Phyllis Mattingly to parse the proposal with Taylor. When they returned, George went through the entire proposal, making the distinctions.
Gill’s intervention was applauded loudly twice by the overflowing crowd in attendance, and focused the court on making a decision that night.
Magistrate Darrell Varner then said, “We have two options. We can pass what the Commission sent us (on the IFC, rural residential and conservation districts with any immaterial changes), slow growth and move in the right direction, and we can then work on the others (material changes), or allow for more delay. I think we should move ahead tonight.”
The court coalesced around Varner’s proposal, which George confirmed was a viable option, and then passed the ordinance. George then gave the new ordinance its first reading so that it could receive its second reading at the first meeting in February and become law.
Somewhat lost in the loud and energized public debate on IFC, the court also adopted changes to the Commission’s ordinances relating to rural residential/residual farmland and conservation districts. Most of Taylor’s proposal dealt with these types of development, and most of that was material changes. Several magistrates expressed positive views of many of the changes and plan to continue working on these with hopes of sending a directive to the Commission.
“The updates to rural residential developments are a major win for preservation,” Taylor said. “By removing eligibility for farms under 100 acres, we have shielded over 1,000 tracts from being developed in that manner, effectively curbing sprawl and protecting our farmland for future generations.”
As to the passage of the entire package, which included the Commission’s proposal and immaterial changes, Taylor told the Sun after the meeting: “The passage of this Planning and Zoning Text Amendment is a vital victory for our community. As a fierce advocate for preservation on the Fiscal Court, I view our farmland as a precious and finite resource that defines the character of Woodford County. I am pleased that the final amendment incorporates several key elements of my proposed changes, building upon the already excellent and important work of the Planning Commission and the court to ensure our ordinances are even stronger for preservation and fair for every Woodford County farm family.”
South Woodford County farmer Jim Mansfield, one of the primary organizers of the new preservation group, said after the meeting, “I feel really good they took action. It’s not perfect, but much better than the status quo. This is more in line with the original intent of the court back in 1990 for a young person to stay on the family’s farm.”
Editor’s Note: Due to the length of Tuesday night’s Fiscal Court meeting and the Sun’s print deadline, the Sun will only cover what took place at the Jan. 13 meeting in relation to the changes to rural land transfers, which included in-family conveyances, rural residential and conservation district land uses and transfers. Next week’s Sun will have a story on the rest of the meeting, including an update on the Yokohama plant purchase by Versailles and the count.