# Board of Adjustment Meeting - June 26, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 26, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1734 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1734?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-06-26 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 4,482 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 June 26, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Peter Brown presiding. The board considered four agenda items during the meeting, taking four votes and hearing four public comments. Of the matters brought before the board, two applications were approved, one was denied, and one was deferred for further consideration. The approved items included a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor recreational facility proposed by Natalie Handshoe and an Administrative Review for a sign modification at Liberty Worship Center. The board denied Garrett LLC's request for an Administrative Review regarding a fence waiver. The revocation hearing for Fender Funeral Directors' Conditional Use Permit was deferred. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 26, 2009: * Peter Brown * Louis Stout * James Griggs * Carolyn Edwards * Barry Stumbo * Kathryn Moore * Jan Meyer * Jim Hume * Barry Brock * Jim Gallimore * Capt. Charles Bowen * Rochelle Boland * Bill Sallee * Jim Marx * Wanda Howard * Richard Murphy * Sara Tuttle * Glinden Ashcraft * Cory Heitz Cory Heitz arrived late to the meeting. No attendees were absent. ## Votes and Decisions **C-2005-53: Fender Funeral Directors Conditional Use Permit Revocation Hearing** [timestamp: 00:07:57] A motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Jan Meyer, to continue the revocation hearing for Fender Funeral Directors' conditional use permit was postponed by unanimous vote. **C-2009-34: Natalie Handshoe Indoor Recreational Facility Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 00:11:39] A motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Stout, to approve a conditional use permit for Natalie Handshoe's indoor recreational facility passed unanimously. The facility shall be established in accordance with the submitted application and site plan, with operating hours on Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM. **A-2009-32: Liberty Worship Center Sign Modification Administrative Review** [timestamp: 00:14:28] A motion by Louis Stout, seconded by James Griggs, to approve an administrative review for Liberty Worship Center sign modification passed by roll call vote with 6 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor: Carolyn Edwards, James Griggs, Jan Meyer, Kathryn Moore, Louis Stout, and Barry Stumbo Voting against: Peter Brown The approval includes the following conditions: An identification sign of 96 square feet (8' by 12') may be placed on a single pole of the existing structure with a resulting total height of no more than 50', as depicted in the revised elevation drawing submitted on June 10, 2009. The balance of the existing 50' by 20' sign support structure shall be removed either prior to or concurrent with the installation of the new sign. All work shall be done in accordance with a permit issued by the Division of Building Inspection, with the appellant to provide reasonable documentation that the single pole support that is to remain is structurally sound and suitable for the proposed sign. No additional wall signs are allowed on this building. **A-2009-35: Garrett LLC Solid Fence Requirement Waiver Request** [timestamp: 00:40:17] A motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Kathryn Moore, to disapprove an administrative review request by Garrett LLC to waive the solid fence requirement passed unanimously. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the Garrett LLC fence appeal during the public comment period. **Cory Heitz** [timestamp: 00:29:50] apologized for arriving late and explained that he had understood the staff recommendation to be a final decision. He argued that existing trees and topography on the property prevent visibility of the storage area from the street, and requested relief from the fence requirement on the front side of the property. **James Griggs** [timestamp: 00:32:27] expressed concern about the precedent the case might establish. He noted that deciduous trees would not provide year-round screening and recommended strict adherence to the zoning ordinance. **Louis Stout** [timestamp: 00:34:07] asked staff about available mechanisms to grant relief for the front view, acknowledging that the fence might not be visible from the street. However, he ultimately supported the staff's disapproval of the appeal, citing the ordinance's absolute language. **Kathryn Moore** [timestamp: 00:36:55] asked whether the fence requirement could be waived based on the absence of neighbor objections. She was informed that while objections are considered during the review process, they are not determinative in making a final decision. ## Contested Items **Garrett LLC Fence Waiver Request** The Board addressed a fence waiver request from Garrett LLC, which generated discussion among members regarding precedent and potential future implications. While the Board ultimately reached unanimity in disapproving the appeal, the path to that decision revealed underlying concerns among several members. The primary points of contention centered on two issues: the risk of setting a precedent through the waiver decision, and concerns about visibility impacts, particularly from a nearby cemetery. Additionally, members considered the implications of a rezoning request for adjacent land and how the fence waiver decision might interact with that separate matter. Despite these reservations, the Board voted unanimously to disapprove Garrett LLC's fence waiver request. The unanimous outcome suggests that while members had concerns about the broader implications of granting the waiver, they were aligned in their conclusion that disapproval was the appropriate course of action. ## Fender Funeral Directors - Revocation Hearing for Conditional Use Permit [timestamp: 00:04:09] The Board heard a request to continue the revocation hearing for Fender Funeral Directors' conditional use permit in an Agricultural Urban zone. The hearing addressed ongoing compliance issues with the funeral home's operations. **Presentation and Updates** The applicant presented updated plans addressing previously identified deficiencies: - Reconfigured parking with 90-degree parking spaces - Stormwater compliance measures - Landscaping improvements - Paving contracts **Key Participants** The discussion involved Board members and staff including Richard Murphy, Jim Hume, Jim Gallimore, and Barry Brock. **Board Decision** The Board agreed to continue the revocation hearing rather than proceed with an immediate decision. The continuation was scheduled for July 31, 2009, to allow time for verification that the proposed improvements and compliance measures had been completed as presented. **Outcome** The hearing was deferred pending completion of the submitted plans and compliance work. ## Natalie Handshoe - Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Recreational Facility **Identifier:** C-2009-34 Natalie Handshoe requested approval for a conditional use permit to operate a personal fitness training facility in a Light Industrial zone. [timestamp: 00:08:28] **Staff Recommendation and Applicant Request** Staff recommended approval of the permit with operating hours limited to 5–9 PM. However, the applicant requested extended hours beyond the staff recommendation to better serve her clientele. **Board Decision** The Board approved the conditional use permit with modified operating hours of 8 AM to 9 PM, which extended beyond the staff recommendation but fell short of the applicant's full request. **Rationale** The Board cited two primary factors in supporting approval: - Minimal impact on the surrounding area - Sufficient parking availability **Outcome** The permit was approved with the Board-modified hours of 8 AM to 9 PM. ## Liberty Worship Center - Administrative Review for Sign Modification Liberty Worship Center requested administrative review approval to modify its signage by replacing a large existing sign with a smaller 96 square foot sign mounted on a single pole. [timestamp: 00:12:12] **Proposal Details** The modification aimed to reduce the visual impact of the church's signage through downsizing and consolidation of the sign structure from a dual-pole configuration to a single pole installation. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the sign modification with conditions. The conditions included: - Removal of the existing dual-pole structure - Structural verification of the proposed installation **Board Action** The Board approved the administrative review by a vote of 6-1. **Key Participants** Glinden Ashcraft and Jim Marx were the key speakers during discussion of this agenda item. ## Garrett LLC - Administrative Review for Fence Waiver [timestamp: 00:24:52] **Applicant Request** Garrett LLC requested an exemption from the requirement to install a 6-foot solid fence around an outdoor storage area located in a Heavy Industrial zone. The applicant cited existing trees on the property and the absence of objections from neighboring properties as justification for the waiver. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended disapproval of the fence waiver request. The primary basis for this recommendation was that the ordinance contains an absolute requirement for the fence installation, which staff determined should not be waived in this case. Staff also noted concerns about potential future changes to the property that could affect the adequacy of the existing tree coverage as a substitute for the required fencing. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Cory Heitz, Jim Marx, and Rochelle Boland. **Board Action** The Board voted unanimously to disapprove the fence waiver request for Garrett LLC. This decision upheld the staff recommendation and maintained the requirement that the applicant install a 6-foot solid fence around the outdoor storage area in accordance with ordinance provisions. --- ## Decisions - **C-2005-53** — postponed: Continue revocation hearing for Fender Funeral Directors conditional use permit - **C-2009-34** — passed: Approve conditional use permit for Natalie Handshoe's indoor recreational facility - **A-2009-32** — passed (6-1): Approve administrative review for Liberty Worship Center sign modification - **A-2009-35** — passed: Disapprove administrative review request by Garrett LLC to waive solid fence requirement --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. you Bless you you ready? Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to the June meeting of the Fayette County Board of Adjustments Looks like we're up to full strength here, the board members. I'd ask anyone with a cell phone to please either turn it off or turn it to silent mode. And anyone that anticipates testifying today, I'm not going to administer the group swear. So those of you that are going to testify, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give here today will be the truth? All right. Thank you all. now there are minutes from our May 29th 2009 meeting that I asked for that's that everyone's reviewed and if they have reviewed are there any changes if not I'll entertain a motion so moved second all right all those in favor of mr. Stumbo's motion to approve the May 2009 minutes of the Board of Adjustments please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed right minutes are approved now we'll ask if there are any of the four cases that any of the applicants wish to postpone or withdraw okay then we'll quickly run through the agenda first case is well let's see that's a replication hearing the 2009-34 Natalie Hanshue is the applicant present okay are there any objectors here for that case the next case is 2009-32 Liberty Worship Center applicant here okay you mean are there any objectors here in that case this is a continuation from last month meeting I believe the final case on the agenda is a 2009-35 Garrett LLC is the applicant present okay so that's because not present are there any objectors here for that case. All right. Is anyone here that did not hear their case called? All right. So we'll go back to C 2005-53, Offender of Funeral Directors. I understand there may be an agreement that's been reached between folks concerned. I'll let Mr. Murphy go first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Fender Funeral Directors. In the last two months, Sarah Tuttle, who's with us at Strand Associates, and Mr. Fender have been working with the city to come up with a plan that the administrators could approve. I think we have reached an agreement on that. That's a plan which will govern what he has on the ground now and if he does expand in the future he'd go by the plan that was previously approved. We've gotten a plan that has a two-way entrance on Russell Cave Road, has 90 degree parking as Mr. Gallimore had requested. We're doing all required landscaping. You required Ms. Tuttle to get with Mr. Brock regarding stormwater and they have done that and I think reached an agreement as well on that. And Mr. Hume wanted to see a contract for paving, which I presented to him this morning. I do have copies of these if you want them handed out, but I'm giving the brief version here that the paving is under contract, can be started within two weeks and completed within two days on that. So that's my brief synopsis of where we are. I think we're all in agreement on that. The only one that I think you didn't touch on was number seven, the outdoor lighting installation. Well, there's no outdoor additional outdoor lighting planned at this point, but we'd agreed to that if there is any in the future, it would be the shoebox type where the bulb is shielded from viewers to the side. Okay. All right. Now, Mr. Hume, Mr. Gallimore, Mr. Brock, are you all okay with that? I am. I just asked for us to continue this for 30 days now where we can come back and verify that it's finished and in compliance. Okay, are we having technical difficulties? Oh yeah, don't worry about that. All right. Now, Mr. Hume, will the work be, do you expect it to be completed within the next 30 days? Yes. There were quite a few issues with the plan that was proposed last month, and I worked with Ms. Tuttle on that on behalf of her client, and she's addressed all of those issues. The only thing really left is for them before they actually start work is to be reminded they still have to get a building permit for this paving and maybe a little few cleanup items at that time mr. Brock yes we've received the information that was requested by our division and they would just need to get a grading permit prior to commencing work all right well it looks like we've got it worked out wish I could take some credit for it but I cannot uh good work So when you want to continue this until our July meeting? Yes, sir. All right. That's agreeable to us. Okay. All right. Well, any questions or discussion for Mr. Murphy or the staff? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So move. All right. Is there a second? Second. All right. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion to continue the C2005-53 offender funeral director's case until our July meeting, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? See you in July, Mr. Murphy. Okay. Thank you. Next case is C2009-34, Natalie Henshue. Hi, I'm Natalie Henshue. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Excuse me. The staff has recommended approval of your request subject to two conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Yes, I have. Do you agree to abide by those? On condition number one, it says that my business would be open Monday through Friday from 5 to 9. The majority of my business would be during those hours, but I do need to be open during other regular business hours. And the reason that I had stressed between 5 and 9 is that would be when there would be possible overlap of parking and the other businesses are closed. My business is appointment only, so during the day I don't need any overlap. Okay. Mr. Marks? We discussed that among the staff this morning, and that's acceptable as a change. Okay. So do you have a suggested time different from the 5 to 9 on the weekdays? I'm appointment only. I probably just regular business hours between 8 a.m. and 9, but it would vary. No, it's right now it's just in the afternoon from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and she's saying she wants it from 8 a.m. Okay. So Mr. Marks, are you comfortable? So that would be 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.? I believe that's what she said. You're comfortable with that? Anyone else have any objections or questions? Will there be sufficient parking? Yes, we've already gone over that. I only have appointments of one to three people at a time and there are four parking spaces designated to me and there's 41 for the whole facility. During the day I mostly would be doing one-on-one consultations where I need to do health assessments and that type of thing. So I won't have as much traffic during the day. It's very small class sizes and the minimum parking requirement based on those sizes is actually very comparable to what would be required if it wasn't a different use but comparable to the other uses in that small commercial area. So you're okay with the 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Mr. Marks? Okay. Any other questions or discussion? If not, I'll call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the item C-200934, Natalie Hanchu, Appeals for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish an Indoor Recreational Facility in one suite of an existing building in a light industrial zone on property located at 2551 Regency Road be approved with the conditions and set forth by the staff with the amendment of the operating hours Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. Second. All right. Thank you, Mr. Stumbo and Mr. Stout. All those in favor of Mr. Stumbo's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right. Motion passes. Good luck to you, ma'am. Thank you. Our next case is A2009-32 Liberty Worship Center. It's a continuation from a previous hearing. Good afternoon, sir. Hello. I'm Glenn Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcliff, welcome back. Thank you. All right. Now, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Yes, I have. We will abide by those conditions. Okay. So you're okay with all of them. Any questions or discussion? All right. If not, I'll call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that A-2009-32 Liberty Workshop Center appeals for administrative review to allow 200 square foot sign to be placed in an existing 50 foot tall support structure and professional office. Is that where we are? Yes, sir. in a P1 zone on property located in 1975 Haggard Court Council District 2 be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions. Thank you, Mr. Stump. Now, we just want to be clear that the recommendation is not for the same size as what was applied for. All right, it's down to 96 from the original 200. Correct. Yeah. That should be 96, Ethan. Yes, sir. All right. And that's in the first condition. Yeah. You might add in that with that 200 square foot sign being 200 square foot being replaced by 96. Am I correct? Okay. And I suppose if we were being real specific, it would be on a single upright and the other upright would be removed. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. And that's also in condition one. That's in one condition, I think. All right, let's see, Mr. Stout has made a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right, thank you, Mr. Griggs. All right. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion of approval, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. All right, motion passes. Good luck to you, sir. Thank you. Our final case today is A2009-35 Garrett LLC. Mr. Chairman, I spoke with the contact for the applicant just a few minutes ago. He had received the agenda and the staff report and did not realize that that was a recommendation rather than a final decision. My understanding from our conversation was he was en route to the meeting and thought he could be here in about 15 minutes which I think is within the next five minutes or so. Okay. You may want to take maybe a brief recess and allow him time. But my impression was he was headed here for the meeting. I knew something would come up to hamper our land speed record here. All right. We'll stand at recess until say 1 25. All right. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Thank you. I should be on that. What? I should be on that. They need the hand of it. Thank you. I love you, too I love you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. the applicant shows up or would you like to postpone it until the July meeting I I think what I'd like to hear is the rationale relative to the from the staff as to why this request is being disapproved all right I'm fine with that let's have a brief hearing then and after the hearing after we hear the staff's presentation we might decide what action we'd like to take this appeal is a request to not have to install a six-foot tall solid wall or fence around a proposed outdoor storage and work area subject property includes two lots they're in an I1 zone the front lot right up in here is front song Lyle industrial it has an existing warehouse building this property is kind of undergoing a refurbishment right now a lot of work is going on there the The outdoor storage area that's proposed is back in here for several reasons. They don't feel that putting that six-foot tall fence or wall would be beneficial. They've contacted the property owner here and they really aren't concerned, according to the applicant, about surrounding that storage area with a wall or fence. In the applicant's application, they state that the higher elevation here would result in this having the very limited benefit of a wall or a fence blocking any type of view because of the higher elevation here. They point out that there's trees back in here that would block the view and also that this adjoining property right in here is a wastewater treatment plant. So those are kind of the justifications the applicant provided. Let's move on to some of the pictures now. Excuse me, Mr. Marks. Sir, you just came in. Are you a representative of Garrett, LLC? That's right. All right, we went ahead and commenced the hearing. If you'd like to come forward so you can see the photos better, please do. This is a view from the cemetery that borders a portion of the south side of the property. This is the warehouse building on the front lot. The next slide will show the rear portion of the property that's actually mostly a second lot. and this is the area generally where the proposed storage area is. Next, oh, here, sorry, this is, you can see this is the cemetery property here. So there's clearly a direct view into the rear area from the cemetery, even though it is as a slightly higher elevation. This is a kind of a view looking back across the proposed storage area here, back towards the warehouse building. This is actually from the north side or back side of the, one of the laboratory or office buildings at the wastewater treatment plant next slide will show looking from that wastewater treatment plant border back towards the northwest showing some of the existing trees that they suggest will provide a buffer I think that might have been yeah that was the last one one more overhead here and then I'll wrap it up. One of our major concerns with this is that things change over time and you just can't predict what kind of changes would happen to where some of these issues that don't appear to be major right now might in the future be more of a concern. Also want to point out that the way the ordinance is written it really doesn't give the latitude of doing some sort of a complicated assessment of you know impact or to what extent neighboring properties are concerned or not concerned that type of thing it's pretty much an absolute requirement but anyway just as an example of some of the things that can hunt come up this is that rear lot where they want to have the storage and work area here this is just to give some reference this is the Kroger off Lee's town road up here we just received a zone change request for this property back in here requesting to change that from i1 to a residential use so it's if that zone change gets approved this entire area back in here will be converted to a high density residential use so now to what extent those trees back in here will block the view from that property you know well that's kind of uncertain and there's uncertainty about how long those trees you know will be there so i think that's our major concern is things change over time if you don't put that six foot wall or fence in now in the future that's going to be real difficult to kind of make a judgment about well when when does it need to be going in that kind of thing so i think we actually had three findings for disapproval that you can look at your staff report any questions for mr marks i have a question but not until after i hear this young lady all right uh all right sir would you like to come to the podium please and would you state your name please i'm corey heights i'm a member of garrett llc with my father michael heights corey heights heights h-e-i-t-z thank you i'd like to apologize to everyone for being late today i thought the letter in the mail meant it was disapproved ahead of time so i apologize well we're going to give you a fair shot thank you thank you mr. heights you've received and I presume reviewed the staff report yes they're recommending disapproval and it it doesn't look but when I read the ordinance that's in our staff report doesn't really look like it's we have the option to to grant what you're requesting but we want to hear from you anyhow so sure just make a request is there a chance we can go back to some of the pictures real quick can you go to the one from the city property looking down uh onto the back area yes sir that's actually from the cemetery a few you just passed it okay one more pass that okay if you look right there this is one of our concerns we'd like to to hear your all's opinion on. Mr. Heights, I think they have a laser pointer that you can borrow. That'd be excellent. I have to show it on that one so we can see it. This is being taken right now from your all's wastewater treatment plant, and as you see, the fence is right there, and that's where we'd be putting the screen in. Well, even with the screen in right there, you're still going to be able to see the activities going on in there. So that's one concern or one reason we feel we don't need it on that side. The other area right here is the front. will be a fence. You're asking to put a fence in front of the yard back here. And this fence right here, if we put that up, the view from the street from Lyle Industrial Road, you cannot see that fence from that road. So I understand your guys' logic about Wayne Supply here. Someone else moved in, putting it up there, the screen. But the back part where there's vegetation, it's been there over 100 years. This part here, we're still going to see it. And then the front part there, it's not even visible by the street. that's where we kind of have concerns and would like just you know better judgment on that versus following strictly uh by the rules on this one and see if we can make an adjustment just for those reasons right there all right uh now thank you sir mr hume do you have anything you'd like to add no we'd like to stick to the ordinance and not try to set a press for this all right thank you Any questions for Mr. Hines? Well, I think that most of the vegetation you're suggesting could shield a part of the property. It's deciduous, so it would only be leafed out in the summertime. So that negates the trees, I think, from being much service. It's pretty thick back there, though. Yeah, well, I guess I'm worried about the precedent setting also. Since it's not a peculiar piece of property, there's not a lot of special conditions. Sure. And is this an instance where we can not put it up until something happens? Does it work that way? Like if those trees got cleared, then put up a fence? Or if someone new moved into the side property, then put up a fence? I would think you wouldn't have to do any of the fencing until you start using it for storage or work. Yeah, well, it's going to be used for work. That's a thing. What kind of activities are you going to have back there? We have a leaser that's moving in, Wise Recycling, and they're going to be making it. It's going to be a scrap storage yard back there. Yeah, it would be pretty unsightly. I'm all for you fencing it and shielding it all the way around. Even the front area is not going to be visible from Lyle Industrial Road? I'd just like to see you follow the ordinance. Thank you. Mr. Stunt, did you have a question? I guess my question was going to be to the staff. You had mentioned that part of the lot behind there had been, evidently they are seeking to have it re-zoned back there. Am I concerned? Am I right in that? What would be the problem, and I'm not saying I'm in favor or not in favor, but what would be the problem of sticking to the six-foot fence along that line and granting them relief on that front side? I guess we just have to think of a mechanism to do that since I don't… And I do understand the probability of setting a presence, but we have said on this board before that we judge each case by one and not by those that are to follow. It's not that I'm going to be supporting of this young man. It's just that I'm I just like to know why that could not be Adjusted for that purpose. I would see no reason why it couldn't be But I'm not speaking against Jim or his thoughts on it. I think it needs to be fenced But along that front row right there, why would it have to be Meet that requirement. Well, let's if we can go back one slide I guess this is kind of an example of, you know, depending on where exactly you're standing in the cemetery, you're going to get a view of that storage area, an additional open view if that front section of the fence isn't there. It's not just an issue of visibility from the road. It's also partly visibility from the cemetery. Well, who's going to be looking at it from the cemetery? Well, you know, that's… That's… nobody in there, that's for sure. Now, once that cemetery is used, there will probably be visibility for the folks that are in there, but I don't think they're going to be too concerned about thinking what's over on the other side of the fence relative to what's going in the ground right there. Now, like I'm saying, I'm not opposed to what Jim is saying. I'm just asking if that is a possibility to accommodate here on the front side. If it isn't, then we have to live with it, but that's why I'm just asking the question. Mr. Stown, this is also two lots, so you'd want some separation from those two lots and two different occupants in the event that they would change down the road. So I would ask that you would get that screening between this lot and the front lot. that could change an occupation. That makes sense. That makes sense. Makes sense. Now, can I ask a question real quick to the board? Weren't the letters sent out to our – I mean, we've talked to Wayne Supply on our one side, and we've talked to the cemetery on each side, and they do not have a problem with this. And we sent out the letters to our neighbors, and it stated, if you do have a problem, come forward and speak a grievance with that. And since they're not coming forward, doesn't that mean they kind of agree with us on that? in our decision or does that not matter so much what they think it's more with the zoning the ordinances on that i'm just trying to get clarity because it's my first time doing this sure that's a good question uh i think we've tried to listen to all the evidence put before okay so i whether people object or not is something we would consider but it's not determinative okay And Ms. Bolin, do variances apply to this requirement or not? In reading 7-6B on variances, you have the ability to issue dimensional, departures from dimensional terms. Almost everything that's covered is a dimensional variance. this in essence is an administrative appeal which is a determination of whether the division of building inspection erred in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance and when the zoning ordinance unequivocally states that an outside storage and working area in an i2 zone shall be enclosed by a solid wall or fence not less than six feet i mean i suppose arguably you might be able to alter the height of that fence but I don't think there is the authority there to simply waive an unequivocal requirement with respect to a specific use. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Any discussion? My only comment would be that in an effort to try to help you, there's a word here that says shell, puts us in a very, very un-unique situation relative to making that adjustment. And I'm not concerned about the presidents, I'm concerned about the regulation more so. So I would have to stay in support of what the staff recommended based upon what was just read to me and comments by a colleague across the aisle. If there's no other discussion or questions then I'll call for a vote or call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that A-2009-35 Garrett LLC appeals for an administrative review to determine that a six-foot-tall solid fence as required by the zoning ordinance should not be required around an outdoor storage and work area in a heavy industrial I-2 zone on property located at 203-205 Lyle Road, Lyle Industry Road, Council District 2, be upheld by the staff for the reasons introduced by the staff. Thank you Mr. Stout. Do I have a second? I second Mr. Stout's motion to disapprove for the reasons recommended by the staff. Thank you Ms. Moore. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those Opposed? Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Heitz. Thank you for coming for us. Thank you. All right. All right. Are there any items? Well, I want to again state that my wife has set up a, I don't know if I want to call memorial, maybe a celebration of past member Joanne Bell set for next Tuesday, June 30th at 5.30. Are there any other board items that need to be discussed? Are there any staff items that need to be discussed? No, sir, not today. Thank you. Okay. Our next meeting will be on July 31st. And if there's no other business, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you.