# Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 30, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 30, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1107 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1107?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-10-30 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 6,809 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on October 30, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Peter Brown presiding. The board considered 12 agenda items, including administrative reviews, revocation hearings, and multiple conditional use requests. The meeting resulted in 10 motions and votes, with the board approving five conditional use applications, denying two others, postponing two revocation hearings, and withdrawing one revocation hearing. Additionally, the board approved the 2010 meeting and filing schedule and received informational updates regarding an APA training conference. Five members of the public provided comments during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** Peter Brown, Louis Stout, James Griggs, Carolyn Edwards, Kathryn Moore, Jan Meyer, Jim Hume, Jim Gallimore, Chuck Saylor, Capt. Charles Bowen, Rochelle Boland, Bill Sallee, Jim Marx, Wanda Howard, Glenn Abbott, Dick Murphy, Earl Thomas, Gloria Thompson, Armando Torres, Tony Barrett, and Wayne Moore. **Absent:** Barry Stumbo. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:02:35] The board unanimously approved minutes from the August 28, 2009 and September 25, 2009 meetings. Motion by Carolyn Edwards, seconded by Louis Stout. Vote: 6-0. **Postponement of A-2009-60: RBHV Lexington Signage Appeal** [timestamp: 00:03:41] The board unanimously postponed the appeal by RBHV Lexington, LLC / RBHV Lexington Retail, LLC for administrative review to transfer signage. Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Vote: 6-0. **Removal of C-2005-53: Fender Funeral Directors** [timestamp: 00:12:33] The board unanimously removed the Fender Funeral Directors revocation hearing from the docket due to compliance with conditions. Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Louis Stout. Vote: 6-0. **Approval of C-2009-63: Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church** [timestamp: 00:14:38] The board unanimously approved the appeal by Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church to amend the rental restriction for the parish house. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by James Griggs. Vote: 6-0. The approval includes conditions that the original conditions from C-2001-25 remain in effect except for the rental restriction, the parish house may be used for rental purposes per the submitted application, and the rental dwelling unit may not be expanded. **Approval of C-2009-65: Gloria Thompson Home Occupation** [timestamp: 00:16:41] The board unanimously approved Gloria Thompson's home occupation for candle, soap, and lotion production. Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Vote: 6-0. Conditions include work confined to the kitchen area not exceeding 300 square feet, compliance with zoning ordinance provisions, and obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. **Approval of C-2009-66: Armando Torres Live Entertainment** [timestamp: 00:20:16] The board unanimously approved live entertainment (karaoke and serenades) at Armando Torres's restaurant. Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Vote: 6-0. Conditions include limiting entertainment to karaoke and serenading with no dancing, restricting entertainment to 1858 Oxford Circle, soundproofing requirements, and keeping doors closed during entertainment. **Approval of C-2009-67: Robert Milward Funeral Home Site Plan** [timestamp: 00:24:21] The board approved the funeral home site plan amendment. Motion by Carolyn Edwards, seconded by James Griggs. Vote: 5-0-1 (one abstention). Conditions include construction per submitted plans, obtaining permits, paved and landscaped parking areas, traffic engineering approval, storm water management, and downward-directed pole lighting. **Postponement of C-2002-2: Episcopal Diocese of Lexington** [timestamp: 00:31:35] The board unanimously postponed the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington revocation hearing. Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Jan Meyer. Vote: 6-0. **Disapproval of C-2009-50: Robert H. Douglas Bed and Breakfast** [timestamp: 00:55:22] The board unanimously disapproved the conditional use permit for Robert H. Douglas's bed and breakfast. Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by James Griggs. Vote: 6-0. **Claysomale Baptist Church Revocation Hearing** [timestamp: 00:49:58] The board unanimously voted to hold a revocation hearing for Claysomale Baptist Church in November 2009. Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by James Griggs. Vote: 6-0. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the Board during the public comment period, discussing three separate projects and their progress. **Episcopal Diocese Project** Glenn Abbott presented an update on the Episcopal Diocese project [timestamp: 00:09:23], providing pay requests and photographs to demonstrate that 57% of the project was complete. Abbott emphasized that much of the completed work involved underground construction not visible to the public and attributed project delays to heavy rainfall. Wayne Moore followed with additional details on the Episcopal Diocese project timeline [timestamp: 00:30:01]. Moore confirmed that asphalt and landscaping work would begin the following Monday and stated the project would be substantially complete within two weeks, despite earlier delays caused by contractor acquisition issues and weather conditions. **Fender Funeral Directors** Dick Murphy reported on Fender Funeral Directors [timestamp: 00:11:32], noting that paving and landscaping work had been completed. Murphy thanked the Board for their patience and highlighted the challenges small businesses face in securing funding. Tony Barrett addressed parking plans for the funeral home [timestamp: 00:21:54], explaining that only 60 of the 80 planned parking spaces would be constructed initially, with the remaining 20 spaces to be added at a later date without requiring the project to return to the Board for approval. **Child Care Facility Proposal** James Brewer presented a child care facility proposal [timestamp: 00:41:02]. Brewer explained his plan to transport children to and from school to minimize traffic impacts. He stated that he would need 12 children enrolled to make the business financially viable, despite concerns raised about the intensity of existing child care services in the area. ## Contested Items The Board addressed two contentious matters during this meeting: **C-2009-64: James Brewer Child Care Facility** The Board faced a difficult decision regarding approval of a child care facility proposed for a residential area that already contained an existing high-intensity facility nearby. The application presented a close vote, reflecting the Board's struggle to balance competing considerations. The applicant demonstrated compelling financial need, which weighed in favor of the proposal. However, the proximity to an existing similar facility and the residential character of the area created significant concerns among Board members. The split vote outcome indicates the Board remained divided on whether approval was appropriate given these circumstances. **C-2002-2: Episcopal Diocese Revocation Hearing** The Board engaged in heated discussion regarding whether to revoke a conditional use permit held by the Episcopal Diocese. The permit had been issued conditionally seven years prior, and the Board examined the applicant's compliance record. Staff presented evidence of minimal progress toward meeting the permit's conditions over the seven-year period. The Diocese representatives countered that delays resulted from weather-related complications and the complexity of securing funding for their project. This disagreement centered on whether the Diocese's explanations for non-compliance were sufficient to warrant continued permission to operate under the conditional permit, or whether the extended period of minimal progress justified revocation. The heated nature of the discussion reflects the Board's difficulty in reconciling staff concerns about non-compliance against the applicant's assertions about external obstacles beyond their control. ## Administrative Review: Signage Transfer from R-3 to B-3 Zone **Identifier:** A-2009-60 The Board discussed an administrative review concerning the transfer of 32 square feet of unused signage from a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone to a Highway Service Business (B-3) zone. [timestamp: 00:03:09] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Ryan Daugherty and Jim Marx. **Concerns Raised** The Board identified several concerns that prevented approval of the transfer: * **Administrative burden** — The process of transferring signage between zones presented administrative challenges * **Lack of visual connection** — The Board noted that the two properties lacked a visual connection to one another * **Uncertainty about sign area limits** — Questions remained unresolved regarding the applicable sign area limits for the transfer **Outcome** The Board postponed the appeal rather than approving or denying it at this time. This postponement allowed for further consideration of the issues raised and additional information to be gathered before a final decision. ## Revocation Hearing: Episcopal Diocese of Lexington Church Project [timestamp: 00:08:19] The Board considered a revocation hearing for the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington Church Project (C-2002-2), a conditional use permit matter. **Project Status** The Board heard that the project had made progress on construction activities, including work on underground utilities and paving of sub-surface elements. The contractor reported an expectation of completing these current phases within two weeks. **Board Discussion** Key speakers Glenn Abbott, Jim Hume, and Wayne Moore participated in the discussion. The Board acknowledged that the project had experienced a significant delay in its timeline. **Outcome** Rather than proceeding with the revocation hearing, the Board voted to postpone the hearing. The Board granted a 30-day extension to allow additional time for the project to continue its construction progress. ## Revocation Hearing: Fender Funeral Directors **Case Identifier:** C-2005-53 **Overview** The Board considered a revocation hearing for Fender Funeral Directors' conditional use permit. [timestamp: 00:11:32] **Key Speakers** - Dick Murphy - Jim Hume **Outcome** The Board removed the revocation hearing from the docket. Staff confirmed that Fender Funeral Directors had completed all required conditions of the original permit, specifically paving and landscaping work. With these conditions satisfied, the revocation hearing was withdrawn and the matter was resolved. ## Conditional Use: Robert H. Douglas Bed and Breakfast **Case Identifier:** C-2009-50 **Outcome:** Denied The Board considered a conditional use application for the Robert H. Douglas Bed and Breakfast [timestamp: 00:32:45]. Key speakers on this matter included Jim Marx and Bill Sallee. The Board disapproved the appeal based on the applicant's failure to provide necessary documentation required for the conditional use review. Specifically, the applicant did not submit ownership verification and did not demonstrate site plan compliance with applicable regulations. Additionally, the Board noted a lack of response to multiple outreach attempts made to the applicant during the review process. This failure to engage with the Board's requests and inquiries contributed to the denial of the conditional use application. ## Conditional Use: Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church Rental of Parish House **Case Number:** C-2009-63 **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use request from Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church to allow rental of its parish house. [timestamp: 00:13:35] **Key Presenter** Earl Thomas presented information regarding the church's request. **Decision** The Board approved the conditional use request, allowing the church to proceed with rental of the parish house. The approval was granted subject to three conditions. **Supporting Factors** The Board noted that a building addition to the church had been completed, and that rental of the parish house would support the church's long-term mission. ## Conditional Use: James Brewer Family Child Care **Case Number:** C-2009-64 **Outcome:** Denied The Board considered a conditional use request for James Brewer Family Child Care [timestamp: 00:35:29]. Key speakers on this matter included James Brewer and Jim Marx. **Concerns Raised** The Board identified several factors that led to disapproval of the request: - **Existing child care intensity:** The Board noted there was already a high intensity of child care use in the neighborhood, which contributed to concerns about cumulative impacts. - **Lack of natural buffers:** The proposed location lacked adequate natural buffers to mitigate potential impacts on surrounding properties. - **Traffic and noise concerns:** The Board expressed concerns about traffic and noise impacts, particularly given that the property was located on a cul-de-sac, which could amplify these effects. **Applicant's Proposal** The applicant presented a plan that included transportation of children, which was intended to address some of the anticipated impacts on the neighborhood. **Board Decision** Despite the applicant's mitigation efforts through the transportation plan, the Board determined that the cumulative effect of existing child care uses in the neighborhood, combined with the site's physical constraints and location characteristics, warranted denial of the conditional use request. ## Conditional Use: Gloria Thompson Home Occupation **Case Number:** C-2009-65 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use application for a home occupation involving the production of candles, soaps, and lotions [timestamp: 00:16:10]. **Applicant:** Gloria Thompson **Conditions of Approval:** The Board approved the home occupation subject to four conditions: - Work must be confined to the kitchen - Compliance with all applicable zoning rules and regulations - Obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy - Additional operational requirements as specified by the Board The approval allows Ms. Thompson to operate her candle, soap, and lotion production business from her residence, provided she adheres to these restrictions and requirements designed to ensure the home-based business operates in compliance with local zoning standards and does not negatively impact the residential character of the neighborhood. ## Conditional Use: Armando Torres Live Entertainment [timestamp: 00:17:26] The Board considered a conditional use request (C-2009-66) for karaoke and serenades at a restaurant operated by Armando Torres. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use request, subject to six conditions designed to manage the impact of live entertainment at the location. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included the following requirements: - Soundproofing measures must be implemented - Dancing is not permitted - Operating hours are restricted - A Certificate of Occupancy must be maintained - Two additional conditions (not specified in available materials) The conditional use approval allows the restaurant to offer karaoke and serenade entertainment while maintaining controls to address potential neighborhood impacts related to noise and activity levels. ## Conditional Use: Robert Milward Funeral Home Site Plan Amendment **Case Number:** C-2009-67 **Outcome:** Approved Tony Barrett presented the site plan amendment for the Robert Milward Funeral Home [timestamp: 00:21:19]. The proposal involved an amendment to the conditional use to allow for phased construction of parking facilities. **Key Proposal Details:** The amendment authorized the addition of 20–25 parking spaces to be constructed in a later phase without requiring a new application to the Board. **Conditions of Approval:** The Board approved the amendment subject to six conditions, which included: - Stormwater management requirements - Traffic engineering approval **Summary:** The phased approach to parking construction allowed the funeral home to proceed with initial development while deferring the addition of parking spaces to a future phase, contingent upon meeting specified conditions related to stormwater management and traffic engineering standards. ## Board Item: Claysomale Baptist Church Revocation Hearing [timestamp: 00:48:56] A motion was made to schedule a revocation hearing for Claysomale Baptist Church. The hearing was requested due to violations of site plan conditions at the property. **Violations Cited** The church was cited for the following violations: - Removal of landscaping and fencing - Unauthorized parking on adjacent property **Outcome** The motion to schedule the revocation hearing was approved. ## Staff Item: 2010 Meeting and Filing Schedule The Board discussed adjustments to the 2010 meeting schedule [timestamp: 00:51:06]. **Key Speakers** Bill Sallee and Jim Marx led the discussion on this item. **Discussion** The Board considered modifications to the 2010 meeting calendar to address scheduling conflicts. Two primary adjustments were discussed: - Moving the May meeting back one week to avoid a conflict with Memorial Day - Considering December 10th as the date for the December meeting **Outcome** The 2010 meeting and filing schedule was approved. ## Staff Item: APA Training Conference [timestamp: 00:53:14] Bill Sallee informed the Board of an upcoming APA audio conference scheduled for November 11, 2009, titled "Planning with Large Institutions." The conference counts toward required training hours for staff members. This was presented as an informational item with no action required from the Board. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of minutes from August 28, 2009 and September 25, 2009 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of A-2009-60: RBHV Lexington, LLC / RBHV Lexington Retail, LLC appeal for administrative review to transfer signage - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Removal of C-2005-53: Fender Funeral Directors revocation hearing from docket due to compliance with conditions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of C-2009-63: Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church appeal to amend rental restriction for parish house - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of C-2009-65: Gloria Thompson home occupation for candle, soap, and lotion production - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of C-2009-66: Armando Torres live entertainment (karaoke and serenades) at restaurant - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of C-2009-67: Robert Milward funeral home site plan amendment - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of C-2002-2: Episcopal Diocese of Lexington revocation hearing - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Disapproval of C-2009-50: Robert H. Douglas bed and breakfast conditional use permit - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Motion to hold revocation hearing for Claysomale Baptist Church in November 2009 --- ## Full transcript I I'm sorry. Good afternoon. and welcome to the Halloween meeting of the Fayette County Board of Adjustments. Let's see. Yes. Expect all tricks and no treats today. First, I'll ask those of you with cell phones to please either turn them off or turn them to silent mode. And those of you in the audience that expect to testify today, I'd ask that you raise your right hand and ask you to swear or affirm that the testimony you give here today will be the truth. All right. Thank you. Now, we have meeting minutes from the August 2009 and September 2009 meeting. Thank you, Ms. Howard, for giving those to us. I asked the board if they'd had a chance to review those and if they have any corrections. If not, I'll ask for a motion. Move for approval of the minutes of the Board of Adjustments of August 28, 2009, and September 25, 2009. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Mr. Stout, all those in favor of Ms. Edwards' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Are there any items on the agenda today that will be postponed or withdrawn? Could you come to the podium, please? I'm Ryan Daugherty. I'm standing in for Bruce Simpson on behalf of RBHV Lexington. We're on page 5. It's item A, 2009-60. Bruce has had discussions with, I believe it was Jim Marks previously, and they're aware that we'd like to postpone this item and be put back on the docket for November 20th in order to allow us to have further discussions with staff and work out a few issues. All right. Thank you. Any discussion? Is it okay with you, Mr. Marks? Okay. Does that not entertain a motion? Okay. Mr. Stout's moved to pass this case to our November docket. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Tell Mr. Simpson we said hello. I will do. Thank you. All right. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Now I'll call through the docket to see if there are any objectors. First case is the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington. Any objectors here for that? Father Kibler, I presume you're here for that. Okay. Next case is offender funeral directors. Are there any objectors here? Mr. Murphy, you're here for that case. In this case, it's Robert H. Douglas is the applicant here. Are there any objectors here for that case? Mr. Salim, do you know anything about the whereabouts of Mr. Douglas? I talked to the attorney a day or so after the last hearing and kind of said that the board was concerned that he hadn't shown up for at least two hearings and gave him the option of asking for an indefinite postponement, which at the time he seemed interested in, but then I didn't hear back from him at all. Who's his attorney? Give me a second. I can... Next case is... It's, Mr. Chairman, Will Messer. Will Messer, okay. Well, in the event he's the applicant's late, we'll just leave it on the docket and address it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Next case is Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church. Are you the applicant, sir? Are you the applicant? Okay. Are there any objectors here for that case? James Brewer. You, Mr. Brewer? Okay. Are there any objectors here for that case? Gloria Thompson. Are you, Ms. Thompson? Okay. Are there any objectors here for that case? Armando Torres are you Mr. Torres thank you are there any objectors here for that case Robert Millward are you Mr. Millward are there any objectors here for that case Is there anyone here for a case that I did not call? Okay, so I'll call C2002-2, the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington. Good afternoon. My name is Clint Abbott with M2D Design. Thank you, Mr. Abbott, for being here. You're on terms, I believe, to have the conditions met from the 2002 case. And so I'll ask to hear from Mr. Hume. As of yesterday, they are not in compliance. They have submitted plans and had a permit issued for a couple months now. And they are, at best, 10% complete. They did not contact me until Wednesday. Clint called me and told me some things that they had been having problems with and troubles with. but the facts still remain that they are not finished, and I prefer to hold to the revocation. I think that's reasonable. Do you have any reason why we shouldn't hold a revocation hearing today? I can try to present a few facts that I think may shed some light on the situation. All right. I would disagree that there are more than 10 or only 10 percent done. I have with me a pay request that I have as an engineer signed off on for $64,000, which is approximately half of the contract amount for the total construction. In fact, it's 57 percent of the contract amount. It's easy to drive by the site and look at it and say they haven't done anything, But the truth of the matter is they have done most of the work that goes underground, and that work is not always extremely visible. You know, it's kind of like you put up your drywall in your house and you spackle it, and then it gets painted. Well, when it's painted, it looks finished, but when you've got the drywall and the spackle up, it's pretty complete. So I brought the pay request if anyone would like to take a look at it and some pictures of the site that we're taking Wednesday, which show the work that has happened so far. Okay. We'll take a look at those. But while we're looking at those, I'll ask Mr. Hume to, or what, anyone on the board think we don't need to have a revocation hearing at this point? Oh, that's, I guess that's probably a good idea. We probably should wait for the other items where there's not going to be any objectors just to get them out of here. I presume this will take a little while. And that will give us a chance to review what you've done here. So I'll ask you to take a seat, Mr. Abbott, and we'll call through the rest of the cases. But no one feels that we shouldn't have a hearing, I presume. Okay. Sure. Sure. All right. That sounds great. The next case is Fender Funeral Directors. Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Fender Funeral Directors, and I'm very pleased to report that the two items that were outstanding on this, the paving and the landscaping, have been completed. And I believe the building inspection has checked that out to verify that. And I do want, on behalf of Mr. Fender, I do want to thank you for your patience on this. It's a difficult time for small business to raise money, and he did it and got it done. Mr. Hume, are you satisfied with what's been done at the property? I am, sir. I'd like to thank Mr. Murphy and Fender Funeral Home for doing their part in cleaning this up. and at this time I'd request that my revocation hearing be taken off the docket. Thank you. Now, Ms. Bowen, do we have to take any action? Yeah, I would suggest for the record just making a motion to remove this revocation hearing from the docket based on a finding that the conditions have been met. Thank you. Anyone want to make that motion for me? I so move. Second. All right. Thank you both. All those in favor of Ms. Moore's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion passes. Mr. Salih, were we able to find out anything on the Robert Douglas case? No, Mr. Chairman. I did call and leave a message with Mr. Douglas on his cell phone, and I'm awaiting hopefully a return call. Based on that, we'll move this to the end of the docket, and hopefully something will come up. Next case is C2009-63 Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church. You want to come forward to the podium, please, sir? Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you. Would you state your name for the record, please? Earl Thomas. I'm the pastor of the church. I've been there 52 years come December. Oh, my goodness. You're well-preserved, sir, unless you started preaching when you were about six months old. Well, thank you. All right. The staff has recommended approval of your request subject to the three conditions. I understand. Have you reviewed those conditions? And do you agree to abide by them? You do? We agree with them. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Are there any questions for Mr. Thomas or staff? Any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move that C-2009-93 Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church appeal for a conditional use permit be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by the staff. Thank you. Well, we've got to – I'll need a second. Mr. Crigg, thank you. All those in favor of Ms. Meyer's motion, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed? So the motion passes unanimously. Good luck to you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. All right. Take care. Let's see, the next case is the James Brewer case, but the staff has recommended disapproval on that, so we'll move that towards the end of the docket. Next case is Gloria Thompson. Do you want to come forward, please, ma'am? Would you state your name for the record, please? Gloria Thompson. Ms. Thompson, welcome. Thank you. Now, the staff's recommended approval is subject to four conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Yes. And do you agree to abide by them? Yes. Are there any questions for Ms. Thompson or any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Chair, I move that C2009-65 Gloria Thompson's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation, production of candles, soaps, and lotions in a high-density residential R4 zone on property located at 3916 Kenneshaw Drive be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Second. All right. Thank you, Ms. Moore and Ms. Edwards. All those in favor of Ms. Moore's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion passes unanimously. Good luck to you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So our next case is C2009-66, Armando Torres. Buenas tardes, senor. Buenas tardes. And you are Armando Torres? Yes, I am. Have you had a chance to read the six conditions that were in the staff's report? Yes. The staff has recommended approval for your case, and you've reviewed those six conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes. Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Torres? or any discussion? I have a question for staff, not for you, sir. The way I read it is he'll be allowed to have amplified music in there for his DJ and his karaoke. And then, but is there any, are we putting any limitation on the, how amplified it could be? It's always real cumbersome to do that, so. Okay, it's either amplified or not. Okay. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I don't, and maybe I've overlooked it, are there any hours of operation that you want to limit this to as far as that amplified music? Sometimes I know the board in the past has actually set hours for those kind of deals. Okay. And I'm not objecting to anything as written. Ms. Edwards pointed out on the second to last paragraph on the bottom, it's from Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays from 10 p.m. until 2.30 a.m. That's fine. And that's okay. It just wasn't in the conditions, and that's really all I was looking at. I was just wondering. And if something comes up, we'll just deal with it then. Well, that's fine. Well, would you be opposed to having the times of operations in the conditions? Those hours match the limits from, they have to close at that time regardless. Okay. So that's... That's fine. All right. I did have one question for you, sir. What exactly is serenading? Ms. Edwards wanted me to ask you. Serenade. Serenade. MR. Well, when the… MR. It's similar to karaoke then? MR. Yeah. MR. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Well, if not, then I'll entertain a motion. MR. Mr. Chairman, I move that C-2009-66 Armando Torres appeals for conditional use permit to provide live entertainment, karaoke, and serenades at an existing restaurant in the neighborhood business, B1 Zone on property located at 1858 Oxford Circle, Council District 11, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the sex conditions. Second. Thank you. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. You get the relief you requested. Buona suerte. Thank you. Next case is C2009-67. Robert Milward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. members of the board. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of Millward Funeral Home. Robert Millward. Mr. Barrett, the staff's recommended approval subject to six conditions. Have you reviewed those with your client? Yes. We're in agreement with them. Agree to abide by them? Yes, sir. Any questions for Mr. Barrett? I've got a question. And the plan here, I understand that you're not going to build all the parking on the plan. Right. We're showing 80 spaces on the plan. We're going to build 60 of the 80. That's consistent with the Southland Drive location. Okay. And I don't have any opposition or anything. I just wasn't clear as to which 20 you weren't going to build. I don't know that it's exactly 20. It's that group in the back. These right here. So it would just come across like this? That's right. Okay. Okay. We want overhead. Yeah. These are the parking spaces in this area here that will not be built initially. All right. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Barrett? Any discussion? Any discussion? Right. If the need presents itself, I'd like the flexibility to add those in the future so that we can accommodate the parking on site. But we don't anticipate a need for that additional parking. The way I read the first condition is that you wouldn't have to come back to us if you wanted to build the last 20. Right. That was my interpretation. and I appreciate that. That makes sense to me. Mr. Himmler, are you okay with that? That's my understanding. Okay. It'll just show, it'll just exclude that upper area. Okay. Yeah. All right. But I think it's clear to, at least it's clear to me, that if you want to build the extra 20, that you wouldn't have to come back. Right, and that's perfect. Okay. All right. So any other questions or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend that C2009-67 Robert Milward's appeal for conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for construction and operation of a funeral home in an agriculture urban AU zone on property located at 1509 Trent Boulevard in Council District 8 be approved, and I don't think it's Council District 8 I would question that, but be approved as recommended by staff subject to the six recommendations of condition. Thank you, Mr. Gregg. All those in favor of Ms. Edwards' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Epstein. Thank you. So we've got five, zero, and with one abstention. All right. You're welcome. All right. All right. Thanks. So, has everyone had a chance to review the documents on the, concerning the Episcopal Diocese case? Okay. So, what's the pleasure of the board? Would you like to have a revocation hearing at this time? If it would please the Board, I have some additional documents I'd like you all to take a look at also. Okay. Just concerning weather and the extreme amount of precipitation we've had this month, most of the work that had to be done to complete this project was earthwork. So rain days obviously knock the contractor out from doing any work that day, and sometimes if the rain is heavy enough the following day, or at least a good portion of the following day. And so what I've got here is a list of precipitation that has occurred this month and also an average precipitation, daily precipitation for this month, and it's summarized on the first sheet. All right. I have a suggestion. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair. Given the leeway we afforded vendor funeral homes, and considering their parking lot has the material stacked around it and it's a mess, they're not going to want to leave it that way any longer than they have to. If they're asking for a month, I'm inclined to give it to them. I am too. And at this point, I'll go along with it. We've got them started. I just kind of wanted to get their attention by this, and I think I have it. And I think that they're certainly due to have their conditional use revoked at this point, based on their seven years of not complying. I agree. I think we have all right in the world to have a hearing. But you yourself have seen some movement here. Yes, sir. Yeah, the curbs are in and all their underground utilities are in. And it's just a matter of getting out there and getting it done. There were two gentlemen there yesterday with not a lot of work getting done. But there is one thing. I think the hard surface is pavers. Is that right, Clint? The subsurface for the asphalt has been put in place. The gravel needs to be put in place and then the asphalt. I have a contractor here with me today, and I'd also like to state for the record that he is within his contract time. He wasn't able to start on the job until the beginning of October, so he's only had about a month to get out there and actually get the work done. The other month that would make up the time that from the point at which I was at this last meeting and we agreed that 60 days would be acceptable to get this project done was kind of eaten up with finding a contractor because we went out to bid. And you have to realize that the diocesan or the Episcopal Archdiocese is a national organization. It's not like a local property owner who has money in the bank or can go to his bank and get a loan. They have a process for getting funds approved, much like the government does. So that took a little bit of time as well. What remains to be done is the landscaping, the asphalt, and general cleanup, and that is it. Here's a question I have for you. Will you get it to the point where the asphalt can be put down before the asphalt plants have to close for the winter? I'll let the contractor answer that. Mr. Moore. Could you come forward, please, sir? Could you state your name, please, sir? Yes, my name is Wayne Moore with Moore-Gabber Bridges General Contracting. So we have the asphalt company slated to begin the dense grade on Monday. The landscape company, Hinkle Denmark, is slated to begin their plantings of shrubbery, trees, etc., on Monday. Barring any catastrophe, in five to seven days we'll be substantially complete. It may require a little sod, a little cleanup. We may not even have the lot striped at that point. It depends on weather. But in two weeks, they should be parking on the lot as far as I'm concerned. The project per the pay request is 57%, 58% complete, which is after the 10% kept for retainage. So, in fact, we're about two-thirds of the way done. We have 99% of the pavers are in. Basically, we have the concrete apron, which can't go in, in my view, until after the asphalt, and then the landscaping. That's it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Hewitt, was that helpful? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. So is the board inclined to grant yet one more 30-day continuance? I don't have a problem with it. I think it's that they're moving in the right direction with it. You know, it's given 30 days. I mean, we've given the funeral home longer than that. Okay. All right. Yeah, but they didn't take seven years to do it, though. Well, sometimes it takes longer to build things. All right. All right. So all those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Oh, let's see. I'm sorry. I meant to ask for a second. Do I have a second? All right. So I'll take the vote again. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. So this revocation hearing is rescheduled to our November meeting. I'll look for favorable results in November. Mr. Chairman, due to your schedule and the Thanksgiving holiday, that will be three weeks from today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's see. I'm ready to take up the Robert Douglas case, C2009-50. Has the applicant shown up for that one? No, Mr. Chairman. We've left messages with the applicant and with his attorney and have not had return phone calls. Okay. What's the board's inclination? The third one, Robert Douglas? I think it's sort of disrespectful to leave us hanging month after. I think we could postpone it indefinitely or we could hear some testimony from the staff and then have a substantive motion on the case. You can go either way. It would probably be a good idea just to have the staff explain what information they do not have. Your findings of fact to support a disapproval would probably be along the lines of of the applicant has failed to provide any evidence with respect to this being an appropriate conditional use at this location combined with anything that the staff may tell you with respect to concerns? Absent a request from the applicant, I don't think that you all can do an indefinite postponement. Okay, so we can't accommodate them by doing that. Is Mr. Douglas communicative with you, the staff? I mean. No, not at all. Like I said, the last time I talked to his attorney was a couple of days after the last hearing and explained that at that time you all had concerns that they hadn't come. So I think at this point I would be in favor of a disapproval. I mean, we've talked about that with Ms. Bowen. She's comfortable with that. I'll make a motion. Well, I think we have to have a brief hearing, or is that enough? If you'll give me a couple of minutes to write up some findings based on the staff report, There may be enough here. Okay. All right. Will do. Thank you. So does this make a difference from the applicant's standpoint that applicant has to wait a year again to apply versus a postponement? Is that the difference? Unless it's substantially different. I was trying to complete his case form by going for the indefinite postponement. He should be here. I agree. Other than the Robert Douglas case, the only case I show that we have left is the James Brewer case. So I'll call C2009-64. Mr. Brewer, you want to come forward? James Brewer, welcome. You are James Brewer? James Brewer, I am James Brewer. James Brewer, now since the staff recommended disapproval, I'm going to allow them to present their side first and then you'll get a chance to respond to it. Mr. Marks, is that you? Yeah, we'll get an overhead, to start things off, an overhead aerial shot of the property. We can try to lighten that up as much as possible. I appreciate it. Thanks. This is a request for a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children at a residential property. It's the second one in from the corner. Right here. And it's currently for sale. That property is currently for sale. I think the applicant is interested in purchasing that property, certainly wants to get some assurance about what he can do with child care before he goes any further down that route. The critical thing in this case is the adjoining property right here that was approved over 40 years ago, believe it or not, for basically a commercial child care. At that time, that was allowed as a conditional use. That approval didn't have any conditions directly about the number of children that could be accommodated, other than they had to comply with state requirements. So whatever the state folks that licensed these things approved is what they could have there. So understanding that that's up to 48 kids at that facility. I know at this time that they are transporting their self over half of the kids. so the traffic flow is not what it would normally be. Right. And Mr. Marks, just to the right of the house is the cul-de-sac. It's not too much further up. Yeah, this view is looking towards the south, so Devonport circled to the right, down that way. A few lots further down, it does end in a cul-de-sac, which is one of our additional concerns, is that we tend to have more issues with child care facilities on cul-de-sacs, because generally people like to reside there for more privacy and less traffic, that kind of thing. One of the things that comes up when you have this number of kids in a residential area, you get a lot of street parking, and in this case, you'll notice this vehicle right here is parked. that blocks the sidewalk. So that's the kind of thing that you try to avoid as much as possible, having a sidewalk block. Now, Mr. Marks, behind the house, not the subject house, the one to the west of it, is that an extension out the back? You're talking about this here? It is. That's part of the residence. I think it was really designed as a child care, not as a residence, really. That might be why that's a little unusual appearance for a residence. Well, that's part of the structure. That's part of the structure, yes. Okay. Okay. This next slide will show a more close-up view of the subject property. As far as the minimum requirements for family check here, it does have room for the one additional parking space in the driveway leading up to the one car garage. The rear yard is very large, so there's plenty of room for the outdoor play area. So our main concern with this is the intensity of the adjoining use. This next shot will show the street. You can see that the street conditions are fairly crowded already. The no outlet sign there is kind of reflective of the cul-de-sac ending on this street. And these two cars here are actually parked in front of the subject property on the street. So even without family child care at that location, you already have those spaces being taken up by street parking. So staff cannot support this request based on the intensity of the use on the adjoining property. We've outlined three findings for disapproval in the staff report. Mr. Chair? If I'm understanding you correctly, it's basically, if this was the only child care on the block, or only proposed child care, and the adjoining unit wasn't there, already providing a substantial amount of child care, then you likely wouldn't have the objections that you do. I think that's true. They would meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Chairman, ironically enough, our office has received a complaint on this existing daycare just in the last week or ten days, and the concern was a large amount of traffic in children. So it has certainly outgrown its neighborhood. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hume. Any questions for Mr. Marks or Mr. Hume? Mr. Brewer? What I was proposing to do was just school kids, which we're going to be there in a very short amount of time, The only time there would be any other children, I would be, you know, if there's a sibling group, and I was going to have myself and one other person be able to transport these children so there wouldn't be any additional traffic flow other than just my vehicle. So what you're saying is that you would go to the various schools and pick the children up and bring them back to this residence. And transport them home in the afternoon. Okay. All right. And I know in the backyard there is a chain link fence right now. Put up a privacy fence. I think one of the things on the objection was noise level as well. So that would be a barrier for noise. And the existing daycare has privacy fence as well. So the noise factor would be cut down even more with the additional privacy fence. All right. Any questions for Mr. Brewer? Mr. Brewer? You don't own this house yet. You're just considering it? Right. I've already obtained the financing. I put down my deposit on it, but however, if I do not get approved for this, I'm going to have to withdraw from the contract because I am on disability, trying to get off disability, and without the additional kids, there's no way of paying my mortgage and being able to live. Well, I support your idea of being self-employed at home like this, but I think you've chosen in a spot that's hard for us to approve. Hopefully you'll find a different place if this doesn't go through. Female Speaker 1 I have a question for staff. First, could we write as a condition that he transport the children and that may not be dropped off or picked up? Can one impose that as a condition? Female Speaker 2 Any condition can be imposed that is directly related to an impact of the proposed use. So I don't believe there would be any problem whatsoever in requiring that all transportation to and from the facility be provided by the property owner. And would that change your recommendation? That's going to be tough to enforce, though. I mean, you know, as this thing goes on for years and years, that's going to be a tough one to enforce. Well, according to state regulations, you have to have a sign-in and sign-out sheet on any kids that you transport. So that's something that would be able to be provided to you all at any point in time that would be requested of. Sir Marks, do you have any comments? I don't think that alone would swing our recommendation. You know, there's other issues. Once the kids are there, you know, what's the level of impact? Just in my mind would be very cumbersome. I think that the glimmer of good news here is he hasn't bought the house yet, and maybe he needs to spend some effort looking for an alternative location. All right, thank you. Mr. Brewer? Do you have to have the 12 children, you think, to make it a viable business for you, to make it worth your time, as opposed to like six children? Well, for six children, that's going to pay my electric bill, my mortgage payment, and that's about it because of what you can be paid for. So the additional six children would help me be able to buy my food and be able to live. Mr. Brewer, being that there is a large daycare facility very close by, where are you going to get these children? Are you assured that you would have that many children? I have done research in the area. there is, and spoke with the director at that place, they have continuously turned away children because they can't have any more than what they have. In the area, it is a low-income area. A lot of people walk to work, catch a bus to work, and then they have three and four kids for each family. You know, and a lot of times there's three of them that's in school and maybe one of them that wouldn't be in school. That's the reason I said I would provide the transportation for them because of the large number. There's the five, I think, five different apartment complexes within a half mile of where it's located. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Any other questions or discussion? Anything else from you, Mr. Brewer? Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. There's nothing else. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we disapprove James Brewer's C-2009-64 Board's appeal for a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a single family residential zone on property located at 1187 Devenport Circle based on the staff's recommendations. As much as I hate to, I have to second that. I think this is a very difficult situation to say no to, but I think it's a safe situation to say no to. All those in favor of Mr. Griggs' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Sorry, the motion passes. Thank you. All right. Thank you for coming. We had someone venture in recently. I wonder if they're representative of Robert H. Douglas. No? No. Well, Ms. Bowen's drafted some findings for us and we'll circulate those. Let's see. Those are being circulated. Let's see. While there's being reviewed, I'll call for any board items. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I have an item, if it's appropriate now, to bring it up while you're away. Next month, I'd like to bring the Claysomale Baptist Church up for revocation based on a breaking of one of the conditions of a past case. I think it came back from the 80s. They've actually removed some of their landscaping and some of their fencing, which creates the barrier around the parking lot, and started crossing over into a backyard to park cars, even though the lot's owned by them. I've approached them a couple times to restore it, and they've actually placed some gravel down now as a pathway and tried to do it the civilized way, and they didn't respond too well to that, so I delivered them a written notice of violation and put them on notice that I would be approaching you for a revocation hearing in the November meeting. Okay. Now, do we need to take action on that to allow that? If you are willing to schedule a revocation hearing for your November meeting, you need a motion to have that put on the docket. So any discussion? Would you be opposed to that? I have a question before we do that. Are we having a hearing because they're parking on their property or because they've torn down? It's because it's in violation of one of their site plans that said the property should be developed per the site plan. So we are seeking to make them restore it back the way it was? Yes, sir. I'll approve. Okay. Do I have a second to Mr. Stout's motion? Mr. Greggs, all right. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion to hold a revocation hearing on our November meeting, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hume, for bringing that to our attention. There's a couple of other staff items. There's a meeting schedule. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We distributed copies of the draft schedule for the Board of Adjustment for next year. And on the bottom of the page, you'll notice two columns are highlighted in green. The first deals with your meeting in May. For years this was never an issue, but we had a case a few years ago where a neighborhood was very disappointed that the board held a hearing the weekend prior to Labor Day, the national holidays on Monday. And on the draft schedule, you'll see this May 28th date is the Friday before Memorial Day. So we wanted to ask the board whether you would desire us to move that meeting back a week or keep it in the usual last Friday of the month in May of next year. Thank you, I'll move it back. Be glad to do that. Does that affect the number of days they have to file, or do you adjust that? We would adjust all the filing dates accordingly. Everything would be moved back a week. It's not a problem. We just wanted to set that with you before we did that. Everyone else think that's a good idea? Okay. Gladly we'll do that. The other is in December of next year. It's almost the opposite issue. We have tentatively set that for December 10th, but didn't know if you'd want to move that to December 17th or not. So we thought we would ask you before we finalized your schedule. What did we do last year? I think last year was the 12th. This year is the 11th. Next year would be the 10th. Gives you a little bit more time in late December to enjoy the holidays. The other day is fine with me. Anyone have a preference? Even on the 10th. Will do. Thank you very much. We'll have this in the mailing to you next month for consideration at your November 20 meeting. Okay. Thank you. Now there's a training opportunity. There is an APA audio conference scheduled for Wednesday, November 11th. These are in the seventh floor conference room in the Division of Planning Offices, and they are good for the required training hours for Board of Adjustment members, and certainly want to invite you to attend if your schedules allow. The topic is planning with large institutions. Will they email us on that? Can you all email? I am not sure. We certainly can. I'll make a note that we do that in advance. This month they put a sticky on the advance notice they sent out to them. And what time will it start? It starts at 4 p.m. That's a tough time for me. Okay. Let's see. Has everyone had a chance to review the findings that the phone drafted? Anyone have any discussion, questions? If we disapprove this, then the man can't apply for another year. Is that correct? He can apply for an early rehearing. And so if you all decided that based on that application that he should be heard before that one year is up, then he can go ahead and apply before the year's up. It's a two-step process. So he's going to ask for permission, and then he can come back. Right. Okay. Everyone okay with that? Now, will I need to read that in the record, or can I have a designee read it? I think whoever makes the motion. Ah, there you go. You may not get anyone to make the motion as a result, but that's the way we usually do it. Okay, very good. Mr. Chair. Thank you. I move that C-2009-50, Robert H. Douglas' appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a bed and breakfast facility in the agricultural AR zone on property located at 4417 Dry Branch Road be disapproved for the following reasons. One, the applicant has failed to provide needed information concerning ownership of the proposed bed and breakfast and verification that the owner would reside on the property as required by the zoning ordinance. to deficiency in the submitted site plan have prevented any determination that the proposed facility would comply with all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. All those in favor of Ms. Moore's motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you, Ms. Moore. Okay. Thank you. Our next meeting date will be November 20th due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Is there any other business to come before the board? If not, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. I just can't, I just can't break it to my heart Thank you.