Luxco sues county, Nelson Fiscal Court on denial of Botland warehouse complex

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette / WBRT Radio

Saturday, Jan. 27, 2024 — Luxco Inc., the parent company of Lux Row Distillers, has filed a lawsuit against Nelson Fiscal Court as a group and as individuals in connection with the court’s denial of Luxco’s application to use 182 acres in Botland as a location for construction of distilled spirits warehouses.

The 25-page complaint recounts the history of the project, noting that when first discussed with Nelson Fiscal Court, the court was in full support of the project as evidenced by the county approving resolutions in support of Industrial Revenue Bonds to finance the project.

Luxco purchased the 182-acre Botland property only after the company received assurances that the county was in full support of the project. The company paid $2.49 million for the property.

After the purchase, the company began preparing the property and spending money on engineering studies.

Between the time the company purchased the property and the date it applied for the PUD overlay of that property, Nelson Fiscal Court approved a moratorium to halt consideration of approval of new distilled spirits projects until the county’s zoning ordinance could be revised.

A revised ordinance was approved by Nelson Fiscal Court on July 10, 2023. Luxco states that its project would be in full compliance with the revised ordinance on distilled spirits warehouses.

The company’s complaint claims that the moratorium Fiscal Court approved last summer failed to follow proper procedures to modify the county’s zoning regulations.

Luxco filed its application for a PUD overlay of its agriculturally zoned Botland property on Aug. 10, 2024. On Sept. 26, 2023, the planning commission voted to deny Luxco’s application.

When the company appealed and asked Nelson Fiscal Court to consider the application, the magistrates did so — and voted 3-2 to deny the company’s request. The denial came despite the fact that the county previously agreed to take whatever actions were needed to insure the project’s success.

In addition to breach of contract, the complaint notes that the members of fiscal court failed to back up their denial of the project with findings of facts to support ther decision as required by KRS Chapter 100, the state law governing planning and zoning regulations.

The company’s complaint states the planning commission and Fiscal Court each erred in their consideration of their application. Rather than consider the application on its merits as far as meeting the PUD zoning overlay, both the commission and fiscal court included a review of the project in light of the county’s comprehensive plan.

Luxco states the county and fiscal court committed breach of contract for failing to support its application.

Luxo cites immediate damages of $1.3 million to the company because it was forced to locate new warehouse space. And it has spent a total of $2.7 million of its capital for the purchase of the property and improvements to date. For its part, the company states it is still prepared to move forward with the project.

The company is asking the courts to declare the moratorium on distilled spirits warehouses improper and to declare Fiscal Court’s denial as invalid and legally null and void.

Additionally, the company is asking the courts to compel county government to comply with the terms of the Industrial Revenue Bond agreements in regard to the Botland warehouse project.

The company is also seeking a trial by jury, punitive, compensatory damages, and other relief the courts may deem appropriate.

Editor’s note: A lawsuit only represents one side of a dispute.

-30-