# Board of Adjustment Meeting - December 11, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 11, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1733 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1733?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-12-11 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 11,176 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 Board of Adjustment met on December 11, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Chairman Peter Brown presided over the meeting, which addressed ten agenda items including variance requests and conditional use permit applications. The Board took eight motions and votes and heard four public comments during the session. Of the ten items on the agenda, two were withdrawn: a variance request by Jitander Dudee to reduce landscape buffer width and a variance request by Anderson Homes for Rent to reduce sign setback. The Board approved six conditional use permit applications, including permits for a family child care facility (Carla Jackson-Stovall), an indoor recreational facility (Sam Dick), a personal training studio (Sheila Kalas), an expansion of a preschool at Immanuel Baptist Early Childhood Education Center, an expansion of an athletic complex at Lexington Catholic High School, and a helicopter refueling station for Airvac EMS Inc. The Board also approved a variance request by Troy Lee Turner to reduce side street side yard requirements. One administrative review request by Larry Morton regarding a Building Inspection refusal was denied. ## Attendance **Present:** Peter Brown, Barry Stumbo, Kathryn Moore, Jan Meyer, James Griggs, Carolyn Edwards, Jim Hume, Chuck Saylor, Jim Gallimore, Rochelle Boland, Jim Marx, Bill Sallee, and Wanda Howard. **Absent:** Louis Stout. **Late:** Carolyn Edwards. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on eight items during this meeting, with all motions passing. **V-2009-87: Variance for Troy Lee Turner** [timestamp: 00:16:35] The Board unanimously approved a variance to reduce the side street side yard from 30 to 21 feet to enclose an existing porch. Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Jan Meyer. The porch may be enclosed in accordance with the submitted application and site plan, contingent upon obtaining all necessary permits from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. **C-2009-81: Conditional Use Permit for Carla Jackson-Stovall** [timestamp: 00:20:22] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children. Motion by Carolyn Edwards, seconded by Barry Stumbo. Care may be provided Monday through Saturday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, with extended hours until 9:00 PM limited to six children. A fenced back yard play area and all necessary permits are required prior to opening. **C-2009-82: Conditional Use Permit for Sam Dick** [timestamp: 00:23:08] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility for tri-athlete training. Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. The applicant must obtain all necessary permits and secure a minimum of eight off-street parking spaces at 309/333 North Ashland through lease or binding agreement. **C-2009-83: Conditional Use Permit for Sheila Kalas** [timestamp: 00:24:45] The Board approved a conditional use permit to establish a personal training studio by roll call vote, 5-1. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Voting in favor: Kathryn Moore, Jan Meyer, Barry Stumbo, Carolyn Edwards, and James Griggs. Voting against: Peter Brown. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained within 30 days, and a minimum of six off-street parking spaces must be provided on site. **C-2009-80: Conditional Use Permit for Immanuel Baptist Early Childhood Education Center** [timestamp: 00:37:06] The Board unanimously approved expansion of preschool capacity from 75 to 108 students. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by James Griggs. Maximum enrollment is limited to 108 children ages three to five, with hours Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. **A-2009-85: Administrative Review** [timestamp: 00:53:19] The Board unanimously approved an administrative review of Building Inspection's refusal to allow a child care center in an R2 zone. Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Kathryn Moore. **C-2009-84: Conditional Use Permit for Lexington Catholic High School** [timestamp: 01:02:55] The Board approved expansion of athletic complex facilities by roll call vote, 5-1. Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Barry Stumbo. Voting in favor: Kathryn Moore, Barry Stumbo, Jan Meyer, James Griggs, and Carolyn Edwards. Voting against: Peter Brown. The backstop height will increase from 30 to 50 feet, and lighting must comply with recommendations from a specialized athletic field lighting company. **C-2009-69: Conditional Use Permit for AirVac EMS Inc.** [timestamp: 01:26:09] The Board unanimously approved construction and operation of a helicopter refueling station. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by James Griggs. The applicant must obtain FAA permits, conduct a noise impact study, provide a traffic management plan, and maintain a flight log. ## Public Comment Four members of the public addressed the meeting with concerns regarding preschool operations and helicopter safety. **Preschool Expansion and Traffic** Kelly Hale spoke at [timestamp: 00:27:02] regarding the proposed preschool expansion. Ms. Hale explained that the preschool would operate from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, with the majority of children arriving at 9:00 AM and departing at 12:00 PM. She noted that these hours would avoid peak traffic times. Ms. Hale also indicated that parents would be encouraged to use the Tates Creek entrance to reduce congestion on Old Mt. Tabor Road. Shirley DeBoor commented at [timestamp: 00:29:48] on traffic and safety concerns on Old Mt. Tabor Road. Ms. DeBoor described the road as functioning like an "expressway" due to through traffic and expressed concern about speeding. She stated her support for the agreement to limit the preschool to 108 students and to utilize the Tates Creek entrance as a means of addressing these traffic concerns. **Helicopter Operations Safety** Kevin Mims raised safety concerns at [timestamp: 01:11:55] regarding the proposed helicopter refueling station. Mr. Mims cited the 37-foot rotor diameter of helicopters and noted that only 50 feet of clearance would exist between the refueling station and the existing helipad. He argued that this proximity could result in mid-air collisions or accidents. Kelly Shaw spoke at [timestamp: 01:11:22] about safety and communication issues related to helicopter traffic. Mr. Shaw emphasized the lack of communication with the FAA and highlighted the potential for mid-air collisions, particularly given the uncontrolled airspace and high volume of helicopter traffic in the area. ## Appointments Carolyn Edwards resigned from her position with the Kentucky Housing Corporation. ## Contested Items **Helicopter Refueling Station Safety** Community neighbors raised significant safety concerns about a proposed helicopter refueling station located in proximity to an existing helipad. The primary issues centered on rotor diameter, limited clearance between the facilities, and the lack of communication with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the project. These concerns prompted a heated discussion during the meeting, reflecting the community's worry about potential hazards associated with the close proximity of refueling operations to active helicopter operations. **Preschool Expansion and Traffic** Objectors to a preschool expansion expressed concern about increased traffic impacts on Old Mt. Tabor Road, which they characterized as a dangerous "expressway" of through traffic. The community opposition focused on the road's existing traffic conditions and the potential for the expansion to exacerbate safety issues. This dispute was ultimately resolved through an agreement that limited enrollment at the preschool and included provisions to redirect traffic, addressing the neighbors' concerns about road safety and congestion. **Child Care Center in R2 Zone** A procedural dispute arose regarding the approval of a child care center proposed for a residential R2 zone. The applicant requested a hardship exception to zoning restrictions, arguing for an exception to standard zoning requirements. However, the Board upheld the existing zoning ordinance, which permits child care centers in R2 zones only when they are accessory to a church, school, or private club. The Board's decision maintained the zoning code's restrictions and denied the applicant's request for an exception based on hardship grounds. ## JITANDER DUDEE - Variance to reduce landscape buffer width **Case Number:** V-2009-76 **Outcome:** Withdrawn The applicant withdrew their appeal for a variance to reduce the required landscape buffer width from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in a Professional Office (P-1) zone. [timestamp: 00:08:41] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request, citing public safety concerns and the absence of unique circumstances that would justify a reduction in the required buffer width. **Key Speaker** Jim Marx addressed the matter during the meeting. ## ANDERSON HOMES FOR RENT - Variance to reduce sign setback **Case Number:** V-2009-86 **Applicant Request:** Anderson Homes for Rent requested a variance to reduce the required sign setback from 20 feet to 10 feet in a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone. **Outcome:** The applicant withdrew the appeal. [timestamp: 00:08:41] **Background:** The case was included on the meeting agenda due to prior public advertisement, despite the applicant's decision to withdraw the variance request. **Key Participant:** Jim Marx ## TROY LEE TURNER - Variance to reduce side street side yard **Case Number:** V-2009-87 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request by Troy Lee Turner to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 21 feet to enclose an existing porch on his property. [timestamp: 00:12:43] **Key Speakers:** - Troy Turner - Barry Stumbo - Kathryn Moore **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended approval of the variance based on two primary factors: the unique alignment of the 1939 dwelling on the property and the hardship that would result from being unable to enclose the porch without the variance. **Board Action:** The Board approved the variance request as presented. ## CARLA JACKSON-STOVALL - Conditional use permit for family child care [timestamp: 00:17:25] The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2009-81) from Carla Jackson-Stovall for a family child care operation. **Applicant and Speakers** Carla Jackson-Stovall presented her application, with Barry Stumbo also participating in the discussion. **Permit Details** The conditional use permit would authorize family child care services for up to 12 children, with extended operating hours permitted for up to six children. **Conditions** The applicant agreed to comply with five conditions governing the operation, including permit requirements and specified operational hours. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for family child care. ## SAM DICK - Conditional use permit for indoor recreational facility **Identifier:** C-2009-82 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use permit application for an indoor tri-athlete training facility in a B-4 zone [timestamp: 00:21:29]. **Key Speakers:** - Sam Dick (applicant) - Barry Stumbo **Conditions of Approval:** The Board approved the conditional use permit subject to three conditions: - Obtaining all necessary permits - Securing off-street parking **Action Taken:** The Board granted the conditional use permit for the indoor recreational facility, with the applicant agreeing to comply with the specified conditions. ## SHEILA KALAS - Conditional use permit for personal training studio **Case Number:** C-2009-83 **Applicant:** Sheila Kalas requested a conditional use permit for a personal training studio in a B-4 zone [timestamp: 00:23:40]. **Key Speakers:** Sheila Kalas and James Griggs **Background:** The applicant had been operating the personal training studio business for over five years without obtaining the required conditional use permit. **Conditions of Approval:** The Board approved the conditional use permit with three conditions: - Obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy - Two additional conditions (specific details not provided in available materials) **Outcome:** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the personal training studio. ## IMMANUEL BAPTIST EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION CENTER - Conditional use permit to expand preschool [timestamp: 00:27:02] The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2009-80) for Immanuel Baptist Early Childhood Education Center to expand its preschool program. **Applicant and Presentation** Kelly Hale and Shirley DeBoor presented the expansion proposal to the Board. **Proposal Details** The applicant requested approval to expand the preschool from 75 to 108 students, representing an increase of 33 students. **Concerns and Negotiations** The application generated objections from community members. Rather than proceeding to a contested hearing, the applicant worked with objectors to reach an agreement that addressed their concerns. **Conditions of Approval** As part of the resolution, the applicant agreed to: - Limit enrollment to the proposed 108 students - Encourage parents to use the Tates Creek entrance to reduce traffic impacts on Old Mt. Tabor Road These conditions were designed to mitigate traffic concerns raised by objectors in the surrounding area. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the preschool expansion with the agreed-upon conditions in place. ## LARRY MORTON - Administrative review of Building Inspection refusal [timestamp: 00:38:11] The Board considered an administrative review of a Building Inspection refusal regarding a proposed child care center. The key speakers on this matter were Larry Morton and Barry Stumbo. **Background** The appeal concerned a child care center proposed in an R2 zone. The staff had recommended denying the appeal based on zoning ordinance provisions. **Outcome** The Board upheld the staff's recommendation and denied the appeal. The decision was based on the zoning ordinance's restrictions on child care center uses in R2 zones. Specifically, the ordinance does not permit child care centers in this zone unless they are accessory to a church, school, or private club. Since the proposed facility did not meet this requirement, the Board found no basis to overturn the Building Inspection's refusal. ## LEXINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL - Conditional use permit to expand athletic complex **Case Number:** C-2009-84 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use permit for Lexington Catholic High School to expand its athletic complex [timestamp: 00:53:55]. The proposal included conditions addressing stormwater management and the installation of a 50-foot backstop. **Key Speakers and Discussion** Rena Wiseman and Thelma Jo McAtee were the primary speakers on this agenda item. Thelma Jo McAtee had initially filed an objection to the expansion project. However, after the concerns were addressed during the Board's review, McAtee withdrew her objection. **Conditions Approved** The Board's approval included specific conditions for the project: - Stormwater management requirements - Installation of a 50-foot backstop **Resolution** The conditional use permit was approved by the Board. The withdrawal of the objection by the initial opponent indicated that the conditions imposed satisfied the concerns that had been raised about the athletic complex expansion. ## AIRVAC EMS INC. - Conditional use permit for helicopter refueling station The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2009-69) from AIRVAC EMS INC. for a helicopter refueling station to be located in a light industrial zone. [timestamp: 01:26:09] Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Kelly, Kevin Mims, and Kelly Shaw. The applicant agreed to comply with seven conditions as part of the permit approval. These conditions included Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) compliance and noise mitigation measures to address potential impacts on surrounding areas. The Board approved the conditional use permit. --- ## Decisions - **V-2009-87** — passed: Approval of variance for Troy Lee Turner to reduce side street side yard from 30 to 21 feet to enclose an existing porch - **C-2009-81** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for Carla Jackson-Stovall to provide family child care for up to 12 children - **C-2009-82** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for Sam Dick to establish an indoor recreational facility (tri-athlete training) - **C-2009-83** — passed (5-1): Approval of conditional use permit for Sheila Kalas to establish an indoor recreational facility (personal training studio) - **C-2009-80** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for Immanuel Baptist Early Childhood Education Center to expand preschool capacity from 75 to 108 students - **A-2009-85** — passed: Administrative review of Building Inspection’s refusal to allow child care center in R2 zone - **C-2009-84** — passed (5-1): Approval of conditional use permit for Lexington Catholic High School to expand athletic complex facilities - **C-2009-69** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for AirVac EMS Inc. to construct and operate a helicopter refueling station --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Oh, my God. Thank you. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Now the compass swings to swing as Jimmy Dorsey trots out a sparkling Harold Mooney arrangement of a favorite of several seasons back. Three little words. Thank you. Oh, my God. Thank you. The End Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome to the December meeting of the Fayette County Board of Adjustments. and our final meeting of Ought 9. Ask those in the audience and others to, if you have cell phones, to please either turn them off or turn them into silent mode. Those of you that are here and expect to testify, I'd ask that you now raise your right hands and that you swear or affirm that the testimony you give here today will be the truth. All right. Thank you. Now, first of all, I'd like to ask if there are any cases that are going to be postponed or withdrawn. Mr. Chairman, I have two cases that have been withdrawn to report. They're actually the first two cases on your agenda. page 1 v 2009 76 we have a letter of withdrawal for that and the first case on page 2 if you flip over v 2009-86 Anderson homes for rent that has also been withdrawn we have a letter for that okay it was in our packet all right thank you mr. Marks miss Bolin I know that we had this last month do we have to take any action on with the wrong case okay all right sorry Any other cases to be postponed or withdrawn? All right. I'm going to run through the agenda to determine what cases have objectors present. First case, V. 2009-87 Torley Turner. Are there any objectors here for that case? Is the applicant here? Okay. Mr. Salee, will you try and call the applicant, please? Yes, sir. You might want to stay until we go through the docket because there might be more than one. See if there are any others. All right. Thank you. Okay. C, 2009-69, ARRIVAC, EMS. Are there any objectors here for that? okay are there any is the applicant here okay now sir like I'm sorry I don't recall your name but I'd like you to go out and talk with the applicant to see if he can address any of your concerns you would thank you and then C 2009-80 Emmanuel Baptist Early Childhood Education Center are there any objectors here for that your objector all right thank you is the applicant here in that matter all right I'd like you to speak with those individuals and see if you can address whatever concerns they might have so please step outside if you would see 2009-81 Carla Jackson Stovall are there any objectors here for that case? Is the applicant here? All right. Mr. Jackson Stovall? Okay, thank you. C2009-82, Sam Dick. Are there any objectors here for that case? C 2009-83 Sheila Kalas are you miss Kalas okay are there any objectors here for that case see 2009-84 Lexington Catholic High School are there any objectors your objector okay is the African here this one I'm assuming would you mind speak with those folks outside see if you can address their concerns thank you okay a 2009-85 Larry Morton other that's a recommendation of disapproval are there any objectors here for that case is mr. Morton here Oh with the tents are Are you an objector, ma'am? You're an objector? Okay. All right. Thank you. And let's see. Would you two step outside and see if you can address her concerns? Thank you. All right. Mr. Chairman, if you could call Troy Lee Turner again, I think he might have arrived. Oh, okay. I'm not positive. Okay. I'll try it. V2009-87, Troy Lee Turner. You, Mr. Turner? Okay. Let's see. Okay, thank you Mr. Marks. So I'll just go ahead and call that case. Are there any objectors here for that case? Okay, would you come to the podium please sir? Mr. Turner, you state your name for the record please sir? Troy Turner. Okay, well Thank you for being here. Now, the staff's recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? I'm not sure I have or not. Okay. Well, you need two. Maybe staff will have them there for you. Oh, yeah, I've read that. Okay. Okay. Yes, sir. So you've had a chance to read those? Yeah, I've read it, and I've read it again, yeah. Okay. Would you agree to abide by those? Yeah. Okay. All right. Just want to make sure. Now, I have a question for you. On your application, the reason for making this application is because you have, let's see, entrances straight into the kitchen and causes large amounts of dirt and dust from business behind house to come straight into kitchen. So I'm wondering what business you have behind your house. We've got a beauty college and there's grocery stores and all kinds of stuff, plus when there's not no concrete or blacktop out there and there's a big side door for a mud room and that's why I wanted that instead of bringing the dirt right in the kitchen where my kids are stuff okay so that you don't have a business on your property no okay I was just confused the one to make sure about that okay any questions for mr. Turner discussion mr. Turner I do have a question for you. There was a concern from one of your neighbors, I guess you boxed in another part of your house at some point in time? Well that was the porch, I stopped on it before I learned I had to get a permit to do that. So the picture that we're looking at, the white the white addition, is that what's being enclosed? No, no, it's a side porch on Southport. That was done 40 years ago on the side there. So you had nothing to do with that? No, no, that was there forever. Okay, very good. What material, what kind of material are you going to box it in? Sidon, white to match the other side. Okay. Any other questions or discussion? I actually, I have a question for Council. One of the neighbors has raised a concern about the way it would look based on the other side. Do we have any control or power over what it looks like? No, that's really not one of the criteria with respect to a variance. There's no other questions or discussion. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move that item 2009-87, Troy Lee Turner, appeals for a variance to reduce the required size street yard along Southport Drive from 30 to 21 feet in order to enclose an existing porch in a single-family residential zone and property located at 306 Rosemont Garden be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Thank you, Mr. Stumbo. Do you have a second? Second. All right. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All those in favor of Mr. Stumbo's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Good luck to you, sir. Thank you, sir. Next case is C2009-81, Carlisle Jackson Stovall. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Would you say your name for the record, please? Carla Jackson Stovall. All right. Welcome. Thank you for being here. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval of your request subject to five conditions. Have you had an opportunity to review those five conditions? conditions yes I have okay and do you agree to abide by them yes I do okay now I want to make clear that prior to doing any construction you have to get your permit from the apartment building inspection okay well we have people that don't do it that way so I like to try to remind people and then I have a question staff is the 6 p 6 a.m. start date or start time is that typical it's a little earlier than typical but certainly reasonable I think all right uh any other questions or discussion okay if not then i'll uh thank you we'll take it we've got some letters here that we'll let the other Board members review. Mr. Chair, one of the letters actually, I think a neighbor thinks that you're going to be open until 11, keeping children until 11 o'clock from 6 a.m. to 11, but it's my understanding that 9 o'clock. Right, 9 o'clock. And only six children from six until nine? Was that amenable? All right. Is anyone prepared to make a motion? Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend C2009-81, Carla Jackson Stovall's Appeal for a Conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a townhouse residential R1T zone on property located 1109 Colon Way be approved as recommended by staff subject to the conditions, the five conditions as set forward. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Do I have a second? I'll second, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Mr. Stumbo. all those in favor of Ms. Edwards motion please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed motion passes good luck to you ma'am This case is C, 2009-82, Sam Dick. Good afternoon, can you state your name please? Sam Dick. Thank you for being here. The staff's recommended approval of your request subject to three conditions. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? Yes, I have. Okay. Do you agree to abide by them? Yes, I do. Okay. Are there any questions for this applicant or any discussion? Mr. Dick, when do you hope to begin operation if this is approved by the board? We have a lease that starts January 1st and we hope to open February 1st. I see that it's going to have a pool. You're going to build a swimming pool? It's a fiberglass unit, self-contained, 18 by 6, and there's a garage door in the back where it can go in. I was just kidding. That'll be above ground, I assume? Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that Item C, 2009-82 Sam Dick appeals for a conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreation facility in a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone located on property located at 320 North Ashland Avenue be approved as set forth with the conditions by the staff. Second. All those in favor of Mr. Stumbo's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Good luck to you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Sure. C-2009-83, Sheila Callas. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Could you state your name, please? Sheila Kalis. Kalis, okay. Ms. Kalis, the staff has recommended approval of your request subject to three conditions. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? I have. And do you agree to abide by those? I do. I have a question for you. So how long have you been open at this current location? A little over five years. Five years? And why is it that you didn't get a building permit? I was unaware that I needed one. I was an existing business that moved from a different location and it was not in my radar that there was something not right about that. Okay. All right. Any other questions for this applicant or any discussion? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve Sheila Kalas' appeal for conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility in a wholesale warehouse business B4 zone on property located at 324 North Ashland Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions. Thank You Mr. Griggs. Do you have a second? Second. All those in favor of Mr. Griggs motion please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed nay. Okay motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just start. No worries, sweetie. Larry, you know what he's here. All the other objectives are on. I don't know what he's here. Okay. You're fine. Okay. Which applicant do you represent? Thank you. And these two folks here, you're the objectors over there. So I'll – since you're in here, I'll go ahead and call you both – call your case. So I'll call C2009-80 Emanuel Baptist Early Childhood Education Center. Would you come forward, please? First of all, would you state your name, please? My name is Kelly Hale. I'm the director of the Early Childhood Education Center. All right. Thank you, Ms. Hale. Now, what I'll do is I'll let – I've got a couple questions for you. First, the staff's recommended approval subject to the four conditions. Have you and your parish reviewed those conditions? I have. Yes, I have reviewed those. And would you and your parish agree to abide by them? Yes. Okay. Now, we do have objectors, so we'll have to hear this matter, unless you're able to – I presume you're still objecting. We came to an agreement, if I can present that. Well, sure. their concern is a concern of mine too Lexington Christian Academy also meets at our church and between the hours of like 8 and maybe 8.40 and then 3 and 3.40 there's a lot of traffic on Mount Tabor Road our preschool program comes in at different times we come in at 9 and leave at 12 So we're not in that traffic time. But it is a concern because of the traffic on Mount Tabor Road. And adding that many cars going from a capacity of 75 to a capacity of 171 is a lot. However, the reason we have the capacity of 171 is just state licensing said, you have this much room, we can license you for that. I don't ever want more than 108 children there on any given day in my program. And so we said that if we can decrease that number to 108 children, we're fine. And the other item that I will do with my families for our preschool is the majority of them, I'll ask them to use our Tates Creek entrance rather than the Old Mount Tabor Road entrance. Okay, and I'm trying to visualize Old Mount Tabor. There's a speedway there. Okay, all right. That's what I was trying to say. And so the Tate, you know, there are those three big churches and we're the one in the middle. And so it's just easier, you know, when LCA comes in and leaves in the morning. It is very, very crowded and it backs up. And so even though we come in at a slightly different time and leave at a different time, we'll just, the majority of my parents will ask to come in on Tate's Creek so it won't build up. Well, I appreciate that. Now, would you come forward to the podium, please? Would you state your name please? Hi, I'm Shirley DeBoer and represent Heatherwood Townhomes. We think if Emanuel will do what she's proposing, that would work for us. We would like to see them use Tate's Creek more. Old Mount Tabor is a very short road. It's become like an expressway. through traffic and the speed limit is 25 and there's no one that goes 25 and so when you add you know the students that are there now it's really bad trying to get out and go to work in the morning it's just really hard to do in both directions so we were very concerned about adding more students until she explained that they would be coming in at nine and leaving at 12. Okay. And you're okay with amending the number from 171 to 108? Yes. That would be satisfying. And we'll just have to trust them that they'll use Jace Creek Road. I've got a question for staff. It sounds like they've reached an agreement, which I appreciate doing our work for us, so I appreciate that, because it's always better when you guys figure it out than when we do. Do we need to amend any of the other recommendations other than number three? I guess all we can do is recommend that the parents use the Tates Creek, but I don't know that we can enforce that. I think I'm looking at Ms. Boland about enforcement of that. I think it can be encouraged. It will be very difficult for the building inspection folks to enforce that, I believe. Okay. I have a question, too. Is it safe to encourage people to go in and out of Tates Creek? I mean, there's less traffic on Mount Tabor. I mean, Tates Creek's a pretty big road. There's not a lot of less traffic on Mount Tabor, believe me. It's very, very busy. And I understand going into the church should not be a problem. I think exiting onto Tates Creek could be a problem because when people come out of the church, if they're going to turn left, they cross Tates Creek and we've had a lot of accidents. so you know we understand that probably coming out old Mount Tabor might be an option but at least get part of them going in on Tates Creek they're coming in towards town anyway that's an easy I'm assuming is there I can't recall is there a signal at Mount Tabor yes there's a signal there's a signal and you know well this is not the place to bring it up but the church does not have any kind of a turnoff lane on Tates Creek and that that's a problem when they turn right into the church I mean they just right off the street so I think we'll bring that before the council that might excuse me mr. Gallimore do you have any insights you'd like to share with us I guess the only thing is it does seem to be a good idea to ask parents maybe to use the Tates Creek entrance more so than the old Mount Tabor but I think typically people are going to want to use the route that is most convenient for them to use so you can ask but I don't know how how persuasive that will be for parents to change their route unless you can come up with some type of incentive by think of some way of expressing them out if they use Tates Creek versus old Mount Tabor or you know a special line that has priority to leave the school or something of that nature but I just don't think just asking the parents to change their route will be that effective it is a little bit hard to tell when the school expands you would tend to think that their traffic patterns are just going to get amplified that that the increase in enrollment is not going come from a particular section of town where Taysha Creek may be more conducive. So I would think that you can probably expect increased congestion on Old Mount Tabor proportional to the amount of increase in the enrollment. Okay. Well, the 30 or so kids. I draw maps for my families at the beginning of the year, and I tell them which entrance to go in. If they go in another entrance, they can't get in the car. I mean, they really can't get in the car line, so they will need to use the Tates Creek entrance. A few of them will need to use Mount Tabor, but that's a lesser number. But the majority of them, I draw maps. I say use the Tates Creek entrance and go around this way. So hopefully that will be, you know, some of them don't obey, but most of them do. All right. We just would like to know that the 108 student limit would be enforced. Absolutely. We're going to change it on the conditions on number three. I don't know if you have them there. But we'll change 171 to 108. And they won't be able to exceed 108 without coming back here. And you will receive notice if they ask for that. Just like you did this time. So that will protect you. If we could make sure any motion for approval reflects the reduction of the 171 to 108 too. Okay. Any other questions or discussion? I didn't understand the 9 to 12 hours because it looks like this daycare will be operating from... It's not a daycare. It's a preschool. It's just a personal thing. I want you to know. we are open from 7 to 6. From 7 to 9 I probably have 10 to 12 students who come in one at a time and then the bulk of all my students are there from 9 to 12 and then I have a few who will stay till 2 o'clock and then I have maybe 20 in an afternoon who stay till no later than 6 o'clock. So those are operating hours but the majority of the children are there not are you know 9 to 12 and that's when car lines are they're at nine o'clock and they're at twelve o'clock okay thank you miss Hale don't run off okay any other questions or discussion if not I'll entertain a motion mr. chair I move that C 2009-80 Emanuel Baptist early childhood education center appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the preschool capacity from 75 to 108 students in a single-family residential R1B zone on property located at 3100 Tates Creek Road be approved as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions with the amendment of condition number three the enrollment shall be no more than 108 children both parties understand the motion the conditions been amended okay final answer all right I'll second all right thank you mr. Griggs all those in favor of miss Meyers motion please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed okay motion passes unanimously thank you all for working together resolve this appreciate that okay now it looks like the the folks from the air evac case are back in that we able to resolve the differences okay I'm gonna have to abstain from that case so I will move it to the end of the agenda and we'll take up the other cases first Is the African in for the Lexington Catholic High School case? No. okay uh yes sir what about the Larry Morton case okay and were you able to work anything out okay would you come forward to the to the podium please I'll call a 2009-80 85 Larry Morton Good afternoon. You, Mr. Morton? Yes, sir. Thank you for being here. Were you able to address the objector's concerns? The concerns of the objector was a fence that she would want put up between the properties. they own the property that's I guess if we're facing a unit it would be on the left hand side of my property and she just wants me to put a fence in between if we were permitted to have a child care and you'd agree to do that? yes sir now the staff has recommended disapproval of your case so typically what we do is we'll let them present and then you can respond to it sure Okay. This request is an administrative appeal to overturn a decision of building inspection which basically was that a child care center can't be permitted in an R2 zone, a two-family residential zone. This property is located on Florence Avenue. It is in an R2 zone. This is a picture of the duplex that was constructed, I think, about 1988. The appellant is interested in changing the use on this property with that existing building from a residential property to a child care center. The zoning ordinance allows child care centers in an R2 zone only if they are accessory to a church or a school or a private club. All three of those things are conditional uses themselves also. So it's pretty much as simple as that. He's asking for something with the zoning ordinance by the letter of how it's written doesn't allow. In his application he stated that he thought that converting the use would be an upgrade for the neighborhood and reference to I guess some historical problems with drug trafficking. So there wasn't really anything there that we could sink our teeth into in terms of looking at you know how the zoning ordinance was written and interpreted so we could not support his request i can put up the language from the zoning ordinance well and that's my that was my question the article 8 or dash 11 e i'm i'm thinking that must have been written by a lawyer because i just i just don't understand that let's put it up on the overhead note that'd be helpful We might have to blow it up there if we can. It was – okay. In the ordinance, the conditional uses for R2 revert back to what's allowed in R1A. So this page is from the R1A, conditional use for child care center. If we go up to the top right part of that, is that the language you were talking about? it's allowed if it's accessory to a church, school, or private club? No, the next paragraph, paragraph E, states that all other uses other than those listed as principal accessory or conditional. It's in our packet information. Okay. That basically just says that unless the use is substantially similar to some other use that's permitted in some fashion, then it's prohibited. Oh, okay. Kind of a catch-all if there's something else that's closely related. Right. And we really couldn't find anything even close that might be considered substantially similar to what the applicant was requesting. Okay. Mr. Morton, do you understand exactly what they're telling you? I understand. pretty much what they're telling me. But what my concern is that I've owned property in that neighborhood. I've built three or four duplexes. I've built this duplex here. And it's been tremendous hardship in regards of having one unit vacant, maybe the other one occupied maybe a year of no one in the unit at all. And my concern is coming down, it's pretty much where as a retiree and looking at a unit that's in good shape, it should be occupied, but the area that's been blatant by criminal activity and it has succeeded quite a bit. That's one of the reasons I'm down here now. And I think in this area there's a need for a child care center. People don't have access to child care, but I think it would be a good facility for people that maybe be able to use it in the neighborhood in terms of just having a place to go, giving a child another way of getting educated, just helping our young, our youth. I have another facility that I own and it's a daycare and And people have been in it for four years, and they know how well I take care of property as having a facility as a daycare. So what I'm basically asking you all is I'm paying taxes on these properties that I'm not able to even to get any kind of decent return on my money. As a daycare, I would look at pretty much maybe a property that I can lease for X amount of years, or it's a property that I may be able to use as a business myself. It's just been a hardship. And I have some information in regards to people I turn my taxes over into. he's got a letter here I'd like to maybe present pretty much stating what I'm saying to you all Mr. Morton let me jump in here and ask a question in the R2 zone would he be able to use this property for any other business type purpose other than a daycare because the way I understand it is that because of the way your property is owned because you the daycare would have to be a part of something else it'd have to be a part of a school church or private club and certainly I don't know you but it sounds like a good idea but I we as a board don't have the authority to grant what you're requesting there's been daycare facilities in this in this particular zone it's been one right up around the corner of Price Road and georgetown street well there's other businesses that's right in this that's i don't know if it's been approved that's right there there's uh grocery stores there's boarding houses let's let mr marks answer my question i can't tell you for certain for any specific property but i would suspect that some of those are grandfathered they were approved many years ago in residential areas you could have years ago child care centers in residential zones okay so if they replied for a long time okay so but as far as applying today is there any are you aware of any business opportunities you could pursue in an r2 zone mr chairman the the major uses of that type in r1 and r2 zones are things like home offices which have square footage restrictions and they're basically accessory to an individual dwelling unit okay no signage no outside employees no additional parking the other is a conditional use called a home occupation that do come before the board almost on a monthly basis that involve notice and they also have square footage limitations and restrictions on parking and outside employees and like a home office they too are accessory to the use of the property as a dwelling. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I also have something from someone in regards to the accessory use as far as having a church there. I have a letter from a pastor that said they would like to use the facility. I don't know if they would have to have approval on it the lady that owns, not owns, but she's the pastor of a church, wanting to know if it's possible to use the facility for her own purposes. And the daycare on this unit would be an accessory to that church. Let me ask a question. Would the church need to be located on the property? Well, that would certainly make it a lot simpler. There have been a handful of cases the board has considered. I can't think of any real recently, but maybe a couple years ago and then several longer ago than that where that specific issue did come up where I think it was adjoining properties. There was a case where a church had an adjoining lot and wanted it to use something that was only allowed as accessory. I think at that time, building inspection said since it was separate lots, it couldn't be considered accessory, but the board overturned that, at least in a couple of cases. I think the church he's talking about is not adjacent. It's several lots away. I'm talking about the church that would be on the property itself. So I'm not talking about anything that would be any blocks away. I'm talking about a church at 744 Florence Avenue. Okay. That would be a conditional use request for a church. Right. So you can't ask for that as an individual, but the church certainly could, is the way I understand it. My question is the conditional use for daycare. Could you help me on that? Because when I applied as far as trying to get a daycare, is there a conditional use for that property? Is there something I can come in and apply for conditional use? You as an individual can, that's the way I read the statute here, but a church could, if it was located on the property, could operate and take care. What was the condition of use that you were pertaining to, sir? It's called a home occupation. So you have to live there? Yes. Anything else you'd like to present, sir? No, I just want to present pretty much it's a hardship in regards to these properties. It's located up here in Indiana. I thought there was a S7 hardship that was something you all would consider. We certainly do consider it, but it's just the ordinances, the way they're drafted, just don't allow us even when we wanted to. We couldn't grant the relief that you were requesting. So are there any questions for Mr. Morton? Any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, first of all, Mr. Morton, I wanted to commend you for what you're trying to accomplish in that area and upgrading that property and so forth. And we certainly can empathize with you regarding the economic challenges that you're facing. However, as the Chairman has indicated, we do not have the authority to approve your request. And so unfortunately, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion, Administrative Review Item 2009-85, Larry Morton, Appeals for an Administrative Review of the Division of Building Inspections Refusal to Allow Child Care Center that is not accessory to a church, school, or private club in a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 744 Florence Avenue. I would like to make a motion that we uphold the staff's recommendation for disapproval. Could I ask you another question, sir? Even though I know that I have been disapproved, I have a concern. This is kind of costly, me coming down and paying someone to send out letters and just going through what I have to go through to talk to you all. So whom would I need to talk to in regards of getting a conditional use as far as maybe someone's interested in having a church on their property? That's a very good question. You need to talk to the Division of Planning. That's who Mr. Marks and Mr. Salee, that's where they work. And it would be wise for you to take your idea to them, ask them for any assistance, and kind of get it all worked out before you came back to us. Private club, same – who would I need to talk to on that? Same folks. Church, school, or private folks. Private club, it all be through the Division of Planning. Thank you very much. Hope you all have a nice day. I appreciate your time, sir. You're welcome. Have a good weekend. Now, we've got a motion by Mr. Stumbo. Do you have a second? Second. All right, Ms. Moore. All those in favor of Mr. Stumbo's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. I think that's our only case. Okay. All right. Ms. Wiseman. I got to abstain from the air evac case so I'm going to put that on the end of the agenda so I'm calling your case to see if you were able to work out anything yes Mr. Chairman I'm Rena Wiseman for Lexington Catholic and we met with the owners of 2333 Southgate Ms. McAtee and Mr. Poore her husband Ms. McAtee's owned this property for many years and they had two issues and they've met the church had a meeting with the neighbors and there were some things talked about that weren't quite fleshed out to to their understanding their two concerns have to do with storm drainage in the area and we have a part of the stormwater management plan that we're implementing is an improvement that will pick up water that's currently getting in their backyard and diverting it into a pipe that goes to another catch basin and so we've explained that to them they've seen the conceptual plan we have discussed that plan with the division of engineering through EA partners and they agree that conceptually that will work in terms of the projected volumes rates of runoff so that will be part of our proposal the second thing that they're concerned about is they are they back up to home plate and we have a 30-foot backstop which is a pretty substantial backstop but nonetheless they tend to get foul balls in their backyard so part of our proposal is we're going to put in a new backstop that's 50 feet tall it'll go from end of dugout to end of dugout that we think will greatly reduce that problem so they're here we want i believe they're still here we want to make sure that they they agree with all that and with with those that explanation we are in agreement with the staff report and the conditions that the staff have presented We also presented 10 letters of support to the staff that we wanted to put in the record as well. Certainly, certainly. Okay. So I guess first of all, staff, based on what Ms. Wiseman stated, do we need to review any of the recommendations? I think the condition we had in there about stormwater as worded will be satisfactory. You've got enough wiggle room to… The only thing we might want to clarify is just for the record that if it is approved, that it includes raising the height of the 30 to 50 feet for the backstop or that area of the fence catch thing. Okay. Well, should you – would that be a fifth condition or would you just add that to number one? Not really a condition, I don't think. Just so building inspection doesn't get caught blindsided by something that's – You just add in to one of the other conditions then? Okay, Mr. Silley's working on that. Okay, thank you, Ms. Wiseman. You're the objectors, aren't you? Would you come forward, please? Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Would you state your name, please, ma'am? Thelma Jo McAtee. Ms. McAtee, thank you for being here. now you heard what Miss Wiseman is that does that satisfy your satisfactory yes well just and so if as long as they we get what what she stated into the into the recommendations you're willing to withdraw your objection correct thank you so much for working this wise but I just want to make sure thank you all right thank you ma'am we've had a little bit of language on condition number one to address the height of the okay net I'll read that since it's a little blurry the athletic complex additions and renovations shall be completed in accordance with the submitted application and site plan including an increase in the height of the backstop from 30 feet to 50 feet it's in addition to condition number one that was miss Wiseman that okay all right now this time I guess I have a question for the Does anyone think that we need to review this matter? Mr. Chair, I am concerned about the drainage. It looks like there was lengthy discussion when they had their last conditional use from the staff report back in 2000. I noted there was recurring water drainage problems in the area. through these meetings they've had with the neighborhood, they've become aware of lingering water drainage problems, and they're saying they're going to work on it again. So I think working on it but not solving it is part of their history, and I think we ought to review this in six months or a year or after a rainy season, and if it's not solved, they need to continue working on it. Any objection from your poll? The only thing I would like to respond to that is that there are drainage problems in the area, but a significant amount of them are not the making of Lexington Catholic because there is no drainage system in that area. There's only the nearest catch basins are at the foot of the hill on Barkley Drive. So once the water leaves our property, it does tend to pond on several intersections, but there is nothing that can be done to solve that from our engineers unless the city would extend sewer lines to get to the catch basin so we'll come back for a review but I think we need to define the problem because if the problem is ponding on Southgate and Sheridan and those streets that's that's the situation that occurs today and will still occur regardless of what we do on Lexington Catholic do you have drain basins on your property as far as their water that falls on your property that sheds off onto adjoining properties we have in the front it's a different watershed we have drainage basins along Clays Mill Road in the back part the field turf is over 10 inches of crushed stone that essentially the entire field acts as a detention basin so that retains the water and it ultimately goes into a pipe that was installed by the church in early 1993 1994 and goes into a outlet that ultimately goes on to Southgate but the problem is that once it leaves Southgate there's no pipe to take it but so we do have on-site detention and we control our water as it leaves the property but our property our water gets mingled in with all the other property on the streets that is not being detained or retained and has nowhere to go well it looks like from these staff reports that they are wanting you all to work on the drainage problem which must mean that some of the drainage problem is is because of your acreage I don't know if anybody's from engineering is here we've met with engineering I'll let the staff respond to that but I think we are handling what we can handle that we are creating it is a issue with an old county neighborhood that does not have storm sewer conveyance facilities got stand in for a replacement for mr. Brock nobody could replace mr. Brock I'm here anyway we have met with mr. Hatfield from EA partners on two different occasions to look at the drainage plan that they're planning to implement miss Wiseman is right the lack of storm sewers in that area contributes a lot to the problems that we see out there but obviously that's not their situation to have to fix so you know we're happy with the proposal that they brought forward of course we'll review that more thoroughly as time goes on but what they proposed so far we are okay with that okay thank you very much any other questions or discussion no not I'll entertain a motion here I move that C 2009-84 Lexington Catholic High Schools appeal for conditional use permit to expand the athletic complex facilities in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 2250 Clay's Mill Road Council District 10 be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff with in addition to the end of one including an increase in height of backstop from 30 feet to 50 feet. I second that Mr. Chairman. All right thank you Ms. Moore, Mr. Stumbo. Any discussion? Mr. Chair I'd be in favor of some type of inspection of the drainage solution that they they decide to use after it's been complete. If it doesn't work, I think they should be asked to go back to the drawing board. Ms. Moore, would you care to amend your motion to include that? Do you think that's necessary? I'd like to see some results from this drainage plan instead of neighborhoods that are still suffering from the water coming off this property? I mean, our requirements state that they have to release the water at a rate that is equal to or less than what is currently coming off the site. Okay, so when they do their drainage study, they're looking at ways they can detain the additional water that results from adding impervious surface and making sure that the rate that that water leaves that site is equal or less. Now, they've demonstrated that. Now, how that we prove that after the fact could be very problematic because we're looking at historical storms that we may never exactly get again. You know, each storm is different in the intensity and all that kind of stuff. So to be honest with you, I don't know how we could prove that, and that may be a huge burden to start requiring that of every developer to prove that, you know, so. I've got another question I guess for Mr. Hume, if there are substantial problems your office would be notified wouldn't it? Yes, if we have complaints on that we will certainly notify engineering and the applicant and possibly report back to this board. Okay, so we can have a replication hearing. Absolutely. Okay, so we've got you on the watch then. Thank you. Does that help Mr. Greggs? I just hate to see a site be enlarged and if each time you work on this site the stormwater problem is lessened then that would be one thing but it looks like there's a history of the storm water problem being the same or worsening so it's hard for me to support it. All right well we have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion I'll call all those in favor of of Ms. Moore's motion to signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. And all those opposed? Aye. It's five to one. Motion passes. All right. Thank you, and thank you, objectors, for working together to resolve this. So, as far as I know, that's the only case that remains is the air evap process. so mr. Stout is not here was our vice chair I'm gonna ask mr. Stumbo to step in and wing it as assistant vice chair I didn't realize there was such a thing I just made it up thought that it would go to the next officer that would be the secretary so I wish everyone Merry Christmas and see you in 2010 very good you too mr. Brown thing so the applicant is here and I know that you all went out and tried to discuss and resolve your issues and that was unsuccessful correct okay like for you to go ahead and approach the podium Yes sir your name please excuse me your name Mike Kelly mr. Kelly mr. Kelly mr. Kelly before you begin I'd like to ask mr. Marks if he would discuss the the staffs finding I know you all made a site visit out there and could you kind of recap that for us? Yeah, we actually, you know, one of the neighboring properties arranged for a test landing of the helicopter on site which two staff members attended and observed. The main purpose of that was, at least for the neighboring property owner, to determine what kind of impacts from noise and possibly when there would be from the landing of the helicopter. We talked directly with the property owner who was there, who was inside her office building, which is just to the west of the subject property. And she didn't notice much noise at all. She was satisfied that there would not be disturbance from noise. There really wasn't much disturbance at all from wind unless you were really close, so that really didn't turn out to be an issue. On site, we also had a chance to meet a representative from Kentucky Department of Aviation who works closely with FAA on permitting of these types of facilities. They had a pretty high comfort level that this was a suitable site to establish what they're proposing for a helicopter refueling station. So that was good to hear from them. Of course, they still have to go through that process of getting permits from FAA and a bunch of other permits that we've listed in our staff recommendations under conditions. So we are recommending approval. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Mr. Kelly, you've seen all the recommendations that staff has set forth. Do you agree with that? Correct, yes. Do you agree with all of those? Right. We already started it. The filing is a 7480-1. And at the beginning of that process, Mr. Steve Marcosi that Mr. Marks spoke about visited the site. And basically, he sends his recommendation to, in this case, it's the ADO, which is the airport district office in Memphis. to a Stacey Hardaway now and then she does an airspace study and in the outstanding issues are with the existing facility there's a an air ambulance facility there located approximately 240 feet to the Northwest Mr. Marcozzi saw no issue with that at the time He made that made the Commission aware of that at the time but since then I got his report and sent it on to Commission so that it wasn't just just my they weren't taking my word for it. But our potential neighbors voiced some concern over safety and I want it to be known that in our industry we've seen in the past two years just a rise in helicopter accidents. So in no way do we, by wanting this approved, want the statement to be that we diminish our request or need for safety as well. That's paramount. It goes without saying. But again, the ultimate decision as far as our proximity to theirs will be answered and decided by the FAA. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Kelly? Thank you, Mr. Kelly. We'd like to hear from the adjunctor. If you'd please come forth and state your name. I'm here for the swearing in. Good afternoon. How are you doing? Just fine. How are you? Your name, sir? Pretty good. Your name, please? Kelly Shaw. Mr. Shaw? You were not here for the swearing in? No, sir. Would you raise your right hand? Everything you're about to say is going to be the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you. I'm Kevin Mims. Mr. Mims. Okay. Well, in our discussion out in the hall, our complaints are just, like he said, it's safety. As far as I know, Mr. Marcozzi, whoever has never talked with us about the volume of aircraft, the volume of flights that come in daily out there throughout the day, throughout the night. and according to Mike when we were talking about Mr. Kelly out in the hall they have switched their proposed flight plan which I don't have I'm not privy to to be to the right so there is according to him around 50 foot between the existing concrete plant and then our helipad for those of you that are familiar with helicopters If you take a 206 L helicopter, they fly. I don't know what the rotor diameter is. 30 foot? 32 foot? 37 feet 4 inches, and he's putting that in a 50-foot space. Okay, so he's going to fly over the concrete plant. So in between the concrete plant and our facility. So he's saying, but there's only 50 feet between our facility and the concrete plant. So you're putting 37 point some foot in a 50 foot area and you've got a helicopter here and a helicopter here. Hold on just a second, Mr. Kelly. Let Mr. Mims finish. Our concern is the safety because nobody's talked to us about the volume of traffic we have. Plus they're putting 37 foot rotor diameter in a 50 foot space. If something happens in the summertime, things get hotter. Those things don't fly. It takes more power to lift them off. If they have an engine failure, where are they going? They've got a 50-foot space, and if you've been out there, the existing heliport of our property is three foot. In that 50-foot span way, you've got a three-foot area. That is different. If he lands in there, is he going to fall over? What's he going to do? Where's he going to land? he's going to have to come on our property either where our helicopters are sitting or in the middle of our hangar. That's our concern. And based on the volume, the other thing is that Mr. Kelly was saying that we would need to monitor each other's radios. Well, you get pilots flying in and out of there every day, talking to each other, talking to make sure they're out of the way of each other, and then you add another confusing, in my opinion, confusing part to that, you've got a lot of chances for rotors hitting. And we don't need a mid-air. We don't need anything. We've been there for 20-some years. We know what it takes to go in and out of there. And I just think it's a bad idea simply because they want to fly. and part of that 50 foot that they're going into is 37 point some foot something happens they're coming down I just don't see any way around it Mr. Shaw is with PHI he can speak more to the volume of traffic that is out there daily but Mr. Marcozzi's never even talked to us about the effects of traffic. If you talk about traffic in a truck or a car is one thing. You take a traffic in a helicopter, it's something completely different. If I've got to slam on the brakes in my car, I'm going to spill my coffee. If I've got nowhere to go in a helicopter, somebody's going to die. Unless they're really, really good. Excuse me, are you part of PHI? Yes, sir. I'm the property owner. So you don't have much experience with helicopters personally? I've got all kinds of them. I ran that helicopter shop since day one, since it was there. We used to have thoroughbred helicopters out of there. We worked on everything from the state's helicopters to coal miners' helicopters to private individuals. So are you an A&P? No, but I am a pilot. Okay. I'm aircraft, single-engine land and helicopter rated. Used to fly out there for East Kentucky Power flying power lines. So, yes, I'm very intimate with all the operations that are down there. The other thing is that you stated on here what I would like to see, and I don't know about PHI, but you were talking about you put on here that they would only fly a certain type of helicopter. That's fine. If they get anything bigger, then the rotors are bigger, and there we go over that. So, I mean, what's to say that something is not bigger? If they're going to mandate, they're going to limit their size, that's fine. If you all make that mandatory, that'd be a great thing. I've got a couple of other things here. I have a question about the volume of traffic out there existing that's daily now. Right. That's up to you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to know just how many takeoff and landings are out there, you know, now. The air medical business, no one really knows what's going to happen. I'm out there every day, and I'll go sometimes three days. We will not have an aircraft come in. And then the next day, there could be as many as seven or eight. So we don't really know what's going to happen. They come in 24-7, various weather conditions. and the other thing with the changing of the way they come in in different directions and the fact that that's uncontrolled airspace, there's really nothing been mentioned about how these guys are going to communicate and, you know, a lot of bad things can happen. If you remember on the news a couple years ago, two helicopters were going into a hospital, uncontrolled airspace. They had a mid-air collision. That made national news. We don't want that. And this is, you know, I'm concerned about, you know, everyone's safety. The other thing that I find very peculiar to me is Fayette County is a very large county. Why on earth is the only place they want to put this right next to us within, you know, 200 yards? They're saying I think it's closer than that, but 200 feet. To me, it just makes no sense. why you know if everyone's talking safety why would you want to put it right next to us knowing that that is jeopardizing safety you know they sit there and say safety safety safety well that's fine and dandy you can say it all day but until you make the effort to prove safety all you're doing is talking that's just my opinion but well in our staff report staff learned that there's a 10 mile radius around the airport where communication with the airport is required and a 20 mile ring around the airport where communication is advised. Staff learned from air vac pilot that was present that as a practical matter most helicopter pilots begin communication with the airport at about 30 miles out. There are serious implications regarding the pilot's license if he or she violates the 10-mile rule and most pilots consider the advised 20-mile communication area as law. So it seems to me that there is communication that's going on. Let me let Mr. Balinski handle that. He's a pilot, I'm a mechanic. Well, I am too. But the reason that we put that out there in the first place was because any time you have to talk to air traffic control, you are under their control. They're going to move you, they're going to push you, they're going to do stuff to make you go different ways to suit the patterns. The reason it's out there and outside that 10-mile ring that you were talking about is we don't have to talk to them because we can go straight to it and land without having to talk to anybody that's why we put it out there in the first place that's why we have it out that far because we service eastern kentucky northern kentucky southern kentucky uh and and western kentucky but western kentucky they would fly to the south of lexington bam come right in and they'd sit down and that's what we do you don't have to talk to them uh yes if you're in that 10 mile ring you better be talking to them if not you're in deep trouble but outs that's why it's there is because we don't have to communicate because as a courtesy not only not only do we not have to communicate but it's a courtesy to them since we are we were in helicopter when i put it out there talking with them i had friends that were air traffic controllers and friends were at the airport they would rather not talk to us if we're out of their airspace because they're not responsible for us and sometimes as a courtesy depending on their traffic I might call them from 30 miles out say hey I'm going to I'm going to the helicopter shop and they would say no problem and a lot of times they only want to talk to you you're not in their airspace they might tell you the wind the temperature boom see you frequency change advised do your own thing so you're not you don't have to talk to them and that's that's one of the sole reasons it's there is for speed and convenience and cost savings because I used to fly a lot from Frankfurt here well sometimes they would divert me when I talked to them they make me fly over midfield the airport so I'd make a jag this way and then come back up here when I could go in a straight line so that's the whole gist of that. I have a quick question for staff. Is the FAA aware of the two helipads or heliports or whatever? From what the representative with the Kentucky Department of Aviation told us directly, yes. And they actually study the safety? Well, that's the point I think is important here is, you know, our issue before you know is mainly a disturbance issue as far as the legal parameters go, making sure there won't be a disturbance to a neighboring property. The safety issue is paramount with I assume with the FAA when they do their permitting. So and none of us here are experts in that. That's why we rely on other agencies to put conditions in Ural's approval to make sure that they get those permits. Mr. Rems, is there anything else that you'd like to add? Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Rems? Thank you, Mr. Rems. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, would you like to respond? Just a quick correction of some information. When we scheduled the fly-in, there had not been, PHI had not posed the opposition. Therefore, they were not notified. We did that for Carmelie Kramer. She was the one that was concerned about the wind turbulence and noise impact. so you know he made reference to mr. Marcosi not contacting them at the point that I scheduled that and mr. Marcosi see when he does his site inspection it was just coincidence that I had him hit there the same day when when he contacted me I said yeah I have a helicopter coming in I my point is we were not trying to slight this company in any way keeping them from any information. The second point that I wanted to clarify, when you submit the 7480-1 you use the prevailing wind as part of your primary approach and departure. The FAA has the latitude to change that however they feel is, you know, best suits the safety of that operation. In this case the primary approach and departure is actually deflected in the opposite direction from the PHI. So and of course we all know that it's the governing wind changes that decide which way we're going to come and go. So but anyway based on the wind direction for the most part we'll be flying away from their operation we don't want anyone to think that safety is not our primary concern and I can't answer the question that he posed about why we why we chose this location we have people that it's based on where our flight volume comes we fly into the hospital and of course then we fly back out and we'd like to fuel up so that's the reason that they chose this location and that that's about it there again anybody have any questions more questions from mr. Kelly okay thank you sir mr. members anything else okay thank you well we have heard from both the petitioner and the opposition and and if nobody has anything else staff would anything else you'd like to add okay thank you well I know in the recommendations obviously everything has got to be there's this is just the first step in a long process that the FAA will certainly be very much involved with and permitted as far as far as whether or not this is going to become a reality so there are a few other steps that have to be taken and this board is being asked to to approve or disapprove the the recommendation from staff so at this time I'd like to recommend or ask if there's a motion Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2009-69 AirVac EMS Inc. appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a helicopter refueling station in a light industrial I-1 zone on property located at 501 Blue Sky Parkway, Council District 12, as recommended by staff and subject to the second, the seven conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you both. Good luck. I'd like to ask if there are any items that the board would like to present at this time. Ms. Edwards? Ms. Edwards? Ms. Edwards. to accept an appointment to the board of the Kentucky Housing Corporation. It seems that the Ethics Commission flagged this as being in conflict. I don't see it, but I'm not on the Ethics Commission. I have enjoyed serving and have certainly learned much about the workings of my city. The members of the board and the staff are fantastic and serve our community in an exemplary fashion. They are dedicated and thoughtful and has truly been a pleasure meeting and serving with all of them. I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity you've given me to serve. And that would be effective after this meeting. Well, I'm sorry. Well, Ms. Edwards, that comes as a bit of a surprise to us. And all I can think of is thank you very much for the time and the effort and the years of service that you have given to this to this Board of Adjustment and to the Lexington and Fayette Urban County community and and we wish you the very best at Kentucky Housing Commission so congratulations on that new appointment but you will be missed thank you does anybody else have anything I'd like to wish this to staff and other groups a Merry Christmas Happy New Year. Very good. Does the staff have anything that they'd like to communicate? Thank you, Mr. Stumbo. Also, we would express Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone on the board and other staff members. There is a training opportunity available to board members before your next meeting. On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 20th, in the Division of Planning Offices, there will be another APA audio conference at 4 p.m. that afternoon. the title is performance measurement and transportation planning which is certainly an issue that other staff members I know will will be attending and learning about also miss Edwards we certainly are going to miss you and staff and the community appreciate your service and just wants to thank you for for all you've done for your time here on the board thank you thank you mr. Sally well with that says the next meeting will be on January 29 2010 we will see you all next year have a very Merry Christmas and this meeting is adjourned Thank you.