# Board of Adjustment Meeting - November 19, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 19, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1756 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1756?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-11-19 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 5,968 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 November 19, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with the Chair presiding. The board addressed 19 agenda items during the meeting, including variance appeals, conditional use appeals, administrative reviews, and board business matters. The board took 6 motions and votes and heard 3 public comments. Among the major actions, the board approved variance appeals for Bruce Barnett (V-2010-104) and Manchester Development (V-2010-106), approved a conditional use appeal for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church (C-2010-102), and approved the Landscape Review Committee Reappointment. Several items were postponed, including the variance appeal for Ken and Lindsay Donworth (V-2010-105), conditional use appeals for B&S Restaurant Management (CV-2010-98) and Total Grace Baptist Church (CV-2010-100), and an administrative review for Randall Peterson (A-2010-103). Two cases were withdrawn: the conditional use revocation for Broadway Christian Church (C-2009-9) and the administrative review for NCJPM Properties (A-2010-90). The board also received informational updates on HB 55 training opportunities and conducted routine business including approval of attendance and minutes. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 19, 2010: * Richard Edwins * Barry McNeese * Dorothy Porter * Lyndon Platt * Rochelle * Ms. Bowman * Mr. Weber * Karen Angelucci No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **V-2010-104: Bruce Barnett Variance** [timestamp: 00:12:23] The board unanimously approved a variance for Bruce Barnett to reduce the front yard setback from 30 to 20 feet on property at 1421 Richmond Road. The approval includes four conditions: the detached garage must be constructed according to the submitted application and site plan; all necessary permits must be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction; the existing driveway must be removed and replaced with grass or landscaping, with the curb cut restored per Division of Traffic Engineering requirements; and the detached garage cannot include a kitchen or be used as an additional dwelling unit. **V-2010-106: Manchester Development Variance** [timestamp: 00:14:04] The board unanimously approved a variance for Manchester Development to eliminate the landscape buffer for a portion of a vehicular use area in a B-4 zone. Three conditions were imposed: the parking lot shall be landscaped per the submitted application and site plan or as amended to comply with Division of Building Inspection requirements; all necessary permits must be obtained prior to construction; and five triangular-shaped areas created by parking space tire stops and the sidewalk edge along Pine Street shall have individual plantings at grade or in planter boxes. **CV-2010-98: B&S Restaurant Management Request** [timestamp: 00:16:39] A motion to deny B&S Restaurant Management's conditional use and variance request due to lack of applicant response was postponed. The applicant will be notified that failure to appear at the next meeting will result in disapproval, which would bar reapplication for one year. **CV-2010-100: Total Grace Baptist Church Request** [timestamp: 00:17:12] The board postponed Total Grace Baptist Church's conditional use and variance request until December 10, 2010. **C-2010-102: Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church Conditional Use** [timestamp: 00:25:45] The board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church to construct a Sunday school and literacy center with two second-floor apartments. Eight conditions were attached, including requirements for permits, parking lot design and landscaping, storm water management, lighting specifications, community parking availability, and filing a consolidation plat. **A-2010-103: Randall Peterson Administrative Review** [timestamp: 00:31:44] The board postponed the administrative review for Randall Peterson's second kitchen request until December 10, 2010. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Richard Edwins** [timestamp: 00:10:03] expressed concern about Bruce Barnett's proposed two-story garage. Edwins, identified as a neighbor, noted that the garage's location was unusual and that it would be taller than the adjacent house. He clarified that he was not objecting to the variance request. **Lyndon Platt** [timestamp: 00:30:08], representing Eagle Engineering, sought clarification regarding the proposed second kitchen in the basement. Platt questioned the kitchen's location and noted that the site plan did not indicate where it would be placed. **Staff** [timestamp: 00:36:57] informed the board that a lengthy technical document related to Vulcan Materials' mine expansion application was available for review. Staff offered to provide physical copies or discs of the document to board members. ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **Richard Weber** was reappointed to the Landscape Review Committee. * **Karen Angelucci** was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee. ## Contested Items **Side Yard Compliance for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church** A procedural dispute arose regarding a discrepancy between the submitted site plan and the actual side yard requirements for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church. The board discussed whether the conditions imposed on the project should be made more specific to ensure full compliance. The disagreement centered on how to address the gap between what was proposed and what was required, with consideration given to strengthening the language of conditions to prevent future non-compliance issues. **Second Kitchen Request by Randall Peterson** The board faced a split vote on a request for a second kitchen submitted by applicant Randall Peterson. The applicant was absent from the meeting, which complicated the board's ability to discuss the request directly with the applicant and obtain additional information needed for a decision. The board debated two options: denying the request outright or postponing it to allow time for further information to be gathered. The board ultimately chose to postpone the request rather than deny it, providing an opportunity for additional materials or clarification to be submitted before a final determination would be made. ## Attendance The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers [timestamp: 00:00]. Attendance was confirmed at this time. ## Approval of Minutes The minutes from the April 30 and September 24, 2010 meetings were presented for approval [timestamp: 00:01:00]. The Chair oversaw this agenda item. The minutes were approved by voice vote without dissent. ## Sounding the Agenda During the sounding of the agenda, the Chair reviewed items for any postponements and withdrawals [timestamp: 00:02:39]. **Actions Taken:** - The appeal for A-2010-90 was withdrawn after compliance was confirmed. - V-2010-105 was postponed to December 10, 2010. **Key Participants:** The Chair and Lynn Pettigo were involved in this procedural item. ## Transcript or Witnesses [timestamp: 00:02:08] The Chair provided an informational announcement regarding the rights of applicants and objectors in the proceeding. Specifically, the Chair announced that applicants and objectors have the right to have a transcript prepared at their expense and to have witnesses sworn. This agenda item was presented as informational in nature, with no debate or discussion recorded. ## V-2010-104: Bruce Barnett Variance Appeal [timestamp: 00:09:02] The Board considered a variance request from Bruce Barnett to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 20 feet. Bruce Barnett presented the variance request. Richard Edwins also participated in the discussion. A neighbor raised concerns regarding the proposed garage, specifically about its height and proximity to the property line. The Board approved the variance request with conditions. The approval included requirements related to construction, landscaping, and use of the property. ## V-2010-105: Ken and Lindsay Donworth Variance Appeal **Overview** The variance appeal for Ken and Lindsay Donworth (V-2010-105) was presented as agenda item III.C.2. [timestamp: 00:03:39] **Key Speaker** Lynn Pettigo addressed this agenda item. **Staff Recommendation** The staff recommended disapproval of the variance appeal. **Outcome** The appeal was postponed to December 10, 2010. The postponement was granted due to the applicants' illness and their lack of representation at the meeting. ## V-2010-106: Manchester Development Variance Appeal **Overview** The Board considered a variance appeal for Manchester Development regarding the elimination of a landscape buffer for a parking lot located in a B-4 zone. **Key Speaker** Barry McNeese presented on this matter. **Outcome** The Board approved the variance with conditions. The approval included requirements related to landscaping and permitting for the project. **Transcript Location** The discussion of this agenda item begins at [timestamp: 00:13:02]. ## CV-2010-98: B&S Restaurant Management Conditional Use Appeal **Discussion** Rochelle presented this conditional use appeal item to the body. The appeal was discussed in the context of incomplete application materials and lack of response from the applicant. **Key Issues** The primary concern was the absence of required documentation and the applicant's failure to respond to requests for information. Staff indicated that without a response from the applicant, a recommendation for denial would be appropriate. **Outcome** The item was postponed to allow additional time for the applicant to provide the necessary documentation and response. [timestamp: 00:14:34] ## CV-2010-100: Total Grace Baptist Church Conditional Use Appeal The board considered an appeal regarding a conditional use request for Total Grace Baptist Church. [timestamp: 00:17:12] Pastor Robinson participated in the discussion on behalf of the church. The appeal addressed parking and design concerns that had been raised regarding the church's conditional use application. Rather than proceeding with a decision at this meeting, the church agreed to meet with staff to work through these outstanding issues. **Outcome:** The appeal was postponed to December 10, 2010, to allow time for the church and staff to address the parking and design concerns collaboratively before the matter returns to the board for further consideration. ## C-2009-9: Broadway Christian Church Conditional Use Revocation [timestamp: 00:08:01] The revocation hearing for Broadway Christian Church's conditional use permit was withdrawn from the agenda after the church demonstrated compliance with all required conditions. The Chair announced the withdrawal, and the case was removed from further consideration. **Outcome:** The matter was withdrawn, eliminating the need for a revocation hearing to proceed. ## C-2010-102: Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church Conditional Use Appeal The Board considered a conditional use appeal for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church regarding a proposed Sunday school and literacy center. [timestamp: 00:17:48] **Key Speakers** Dorothy Porter and the Board Chair were the primary participants in this discussion. **Proposal and Conditions** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the Sunday school and literacy center with several conditions. The approval included requirements related to: - Parking arrangements - Site plan revisions - Landscaping improvements **Concerns Raised** During the discussion, a concern was raised regarding side yard compliance. This issue was addressed during the Board's deliberation on the application. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church's Sunday school and literacy center. ## A-2010-90: NCJPM Properties Administrative Review The Chair addressed this agenda item and announced that it was being removed from the meeting agenda [timestamp: 00:05:15]. The appeal had been included in error and was determined not to be a valid case for consideration at this meeting. **Outcome:** The item was withdrawn from the agenda. ## A-2010-103: Randall Peterson Administrative Review **Item Identifier:** III.E.2 **Discussion Type:** Administrative Review **Key Speaker:** Lyndon Platt **Transcript Location:** [timestamp: 00:26:55] ### Summary The administrative review for A-2010-103 concerning Randall Peterson was postponed during this meeting. The appeal pertained to a request for a second kitchen in a single-family residence. ### Outcome The matter was postponed to December 10, 2010. The postponement was necessitated by two factors: - Lack of applicant presence at the meeting - Incomplete information in the application materials No further discussion or action was taken on this item at this time. ## Board Items No board members presented items during this segment of the meeting. ## Landscape Review Committee Reappointment [timestamp: 00:33:49] The committee approved changes to the Landscape Review Committee membership. Richard Weber was reappointed to the committee for another four-year term. Additionally, Karen Angelucci was appointed as a new member, replacing Melissa Stephan. The outcome of this agenda item was approved. ## HB 55 Training Opportunity [timestamp: 00:35:23] Staff announced a training opportunity related to HB 55. An American Planning Association (APA) audio conference titled "Staying Out of Court by Avoiding Pitfalls" was scheduled for December 8, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. in the Phoenix Building. This was presented as an informational item with no action required. ## Holiday Wishes During this agenda item, staff extended holiday wishes to the board and their families for a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday. ## Next Meeting Date The next meeting was scheduled for December 10, 2010. This date was selected to accommodate the Christmas holiday. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at approximately 00:38:38 after all agenda items had been addressed. --- ## Decisions - **V-2010-104** — passed: Approval of variance for Bruce Barnett to reduce front yard setback from 30 to 20 feet on property at 1421 Richmond Road - **V-2010-106** — passed: Approval of variance for Manchester Development to eliminate landscape buffer for a portion of a vehicular use area in a B-4 zone - **CV-2010-98** — postponed: Motion to deny B&S Restaurant Management's conditional use and variance request due to lack of applicant response - **CV-2010-100** — postponed: Motion to postpone Total Grace Baptist Church's conditional use and variance request - **C-2010-102** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church to construct a Sunday school and literacy center with two second-floor apartments - **A-2010-103** — postponed: Motion to postpone administrative review for Randall Peterson's second kitchen request --- ## Full transcript . Good afternoon, everyone. It's good to see all of you. I understand I missed out on the holiday special last month, but evidently it went pretty well. Sorry I was not able to be here, but I'm back. So we will sound the agenda, and the first thing we want to do is look at approving the minutes for April and September. So if our board members have had an opportunity to view these minutes that have been sent to us, I'm looking for a motion to approve, please. May I have a motion to approve the minutes for April? So moved, Mr. Chair. Any questions? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. We will ask that all of those that are present here for the meeting today, that if you would please turn off your cell phones, put them on silent please. If you have to have an emergency to use it, we would ask that you would please step outside. And those who are going to be testifying on your behalf or someone else's behalf, would you please stand and be sworn in please. All those that are testifying, please stand. You swear to tell the truth and hold truth and nothing but the truth. So help you. Thank you. We're going to sound the agenda in the order that we have in the cases where we have postponements and withdrawals. We will call for those first, but we're going to sound it with the postponements and withdrawals, and then we will do the discussions at the last. So we will sound these first by asking the staff if there are any postponements or withdrawals. Mr. Chair, over here, I'd like to withdraw my revocation hearing on page 4, case A-2010-90. It's Broadway Christian Church? Yes, sir. All right. Does there need to be? They have complied. So you don't need to do any reporting on that? No, sir. They have complied. Thank you. the Broadway Christian Church request by a building that this has been taken care of and that this does not, you don't need any motion on this, do we? I think considering you had it on your agenda for the possibility of a revocation hearing and there wasn't really an applicant, you should probably make a motion to accept the request of building inspection and remove that from your docket. Do I hear a motion by the members, please? So moved. Well, a motion, a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Any postponements? If you would come forward and give your name and your case number, please. My name is Lynn Pettigo and the case number is B-2010-105, Ken and Lindsey Donworth. What is that? All right. All right. I emailed the staff right before the meeting because I'm ill and they're both ill, and he said they couldn't guarantee that anything would happen, so I jumped in my truck and came down here. And they were asking if we could postpone until December the – is it the 12th? 10th. Staff, do you have any concerns with that? We're fine with that. We did get a call this morning from someone that was objecting to one of the variances on here, but we're not sure which ones. You might want to poll the audience to see if anybody's here for that one. Is anyone here in the audience regarding Ken and Lindsay Donworth, anyone in opposition in this particular case? Now, she said postpone until December the 10th, that when we're having our next meeting. That's correct. December the 10th. Board, do you have any questions? Do we have a motion to accept? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you all. Any other postponements? Mr. Chairman, we made a mistake in including the administrative sign appeal. That's on page 4 of your agenda NCJPM properties. That was postponed last month for two months. We made a mistake and had it included on here. So we need to strike that one from the agenda. That's the NCJPM? Correct. That will come back on December 10th. So that's not a postponement. That's just an error, right? Correct. Any other postponements? Any other withdrawals? And we will sound the agenda as it is presented to us, and we'll take the cases as they have to be heard. If there's no discussion, we'll take those cases first. Cases where the staff has recommended disapproval, we will be taking those cases toward the last. Number 1, V-201-104, Bruce Barnett. Bruce Barnett. Bruce Barnett. The staff has recommended disapproval for that, so we'll have to take that case a little later. Barnett's for approval. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Oh, approval. Excuse me. The staff has recommended approval, so we will take that case shortly. Excuse me. I don't want to kick you out of here too early. All right. Do we have any objectors in the House relative to this case, please? All right. V2010106, Manchester Development in the House. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval. Is there anyone here who is objecting to this particular case? CV-201098, B&S Restaurant Management. B&S Restaurant Management. Well, the staff has recommended postponements, so we will deal with that when we – maybe they'll be here. Have you talked with them? They've kind of gone off the radar screen, to be honest with you. Haven't heard from them recently. Gone off the radar screen. All right, we'll take that up as we get to it. CV2010100, Total Grace Baptist Church. Also, the staff has recommended postponement. Is anyone here representing the church? Anyone here to argue against the church? We've been talking to Pastor Robinson, and he's agreeing to postpone this. We have a meeting actually set up for early next week to meet him on site and try to figure out what to do with his parking situation. Okay. C-2009-9 has been taken care of, Broadway Christian Church. That one has been taken care of. C-010102 Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church. Is there anyone representing? I find anyone here who is here to argue against this proposal or to disagree with it. All right. The staff has recommended approval, so we will take it to you in order as it comes. The 201090 was here in error. That's the NCJPM properties. That will be back in December, December the 10th. Randall Peterson. Is there a Randall Peterson in the House? Randall Peterson. This case by the staff has recommended disapproval, so we will get to you as soon as we can. And is anyone here in objection to this particular case? Okay. So that takes us down to calling the first case, I believe. So the first case we're going to be calling is going to be Bruce Barnett. Can you come forward, please? If you're named, if you don't mind. Bruce Barnett. Yes, sir. Bruce, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you read and understand the conditions? I have. Do you have any questions regarding the conditions or anything other regarding this case? I do not. Do you agree to abide by the conditions? I do. Just a moment, please. Do we have someone here in objection? No, sir. I asked that question. I think he just has a question, Mr. Denton. My name is Richard Edwins. I own the house next door. I'm not an objection at all, but I did want to understand what Mr. Barnett was proposing and just would like to understand the conditions before it was passed. Mr. Barnett, would you go over your particular request, please? And if you do not have any concerns relative to the conditions, we will ask the staff to clarify the approval. Would you please? I'm proposing to build a detached garage behind a house that I just purchased two days ago. And I need a 10-foot variance from the 30-foot building line. It's on the corner of Bassett and Richmond. And it's a narrow lot. and so I need a 10-foot variance on the 30-foot building line. It's a detached two-story garage. Staff? I think some of the questions might relate to how that second floor is going to be used and what the height of the detached structure might be. There is a height limit of 20 feet. You can't exceed the height of the principal residence, so I think part of why the gentleman might be here is to get some clarification or some assurance that that will be the case. All right, so before we ask for a motion on this case, we'll allow the gentleman to come back up and introduce himself to this board, please, and ask any questions that you feel like you need to ask. Yes, and again, I'm Richard Edwins. I own the house at 1419, and this structure will be built approximately 8 or 10 feet from that house. It's unusually located on the lot, And as a garage two-story, it would be two-thirds of the house that's built next to and much taller. So that is my concern. As I understand the variance, and I appreciate you helping the phone this morning, the variance in request has nothing to do with the height. But that's why I'm here. I'm just wanting to understand. Thank you. Boy, do you all have any questions? And you do understand the conditions. Yes. And I have no intention of turning it into a separate residence. If the Board doesn't have any questions, we'll open for a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I'll move that Item B-2010-104, Bruce Barnett, appeals for a variance to reduce the required yard along Bassett Avenue from 30 to 20 feet in order to construct a two-story detached garage and single-family residential zone on property located at 1421 Richmond Road, be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. I have a second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The next case is 201-0106, and that is the case where the recommendation of approval has been made by the staff of Manchester Development. There's someone here for Manchester Development. This appeal is for a variance to eliminate the required landscape buffer for a portion of a vehicle-to-use area in a wholesale and a wire house business B zone. Properties are located at 962 and 964 Pine Street and 904 and 910 Manchester Street, Council District 2. Yes, sir, would you give your name, please? Barry McNeese. I'm with Manchester Development. So you're the development of this property? Yes, sir. The staff has recommended approval, three of, recommended approval. It's subject to three conditions. Have you read and understand the conditions? Yes, sir. I gather we ask there's no one here in opposition to this particular case. Staff, are there any questions? Board, any questions? Do you agree to abide by the conditions right here? Yes. Thank you. We all have no questions. We will open for a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V-2010-106, Manchester Development Appeals, for a variance to eliminate the required landscape buffer for a portion of a vehicular use area in a wholesale and warehouse business V-4 zone on properties located at 962-964 Pine Street and 904-9010 Manchester Street. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. I agree. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Now, the gentleman, the case we call concerning B&S restaurant, which is CB201098, no one was here. What do you want to tell us about this? Well, one of the reasons two months ago or so that we recommended postponement, we never got a letter of approval from the actual property owner, which is someone... They were aware of that. We reminded them several times, and I think it's just something they're not going to get. So it would be fairly easy to turn this around to disapproval if you all wanted to take that route. For that reason, as well as the other two here, we could tweak the language a little bit. I just haven't heard anything from them recently. I will ask our legal question over here. Are we in a position to withdraw this case or what? No, no, you would not withdraw it. You could, based on the staff's recommendation and the lack of information in support of the request, you could certainly deny it. Do we have any questions from the, any comments from the board regarding this case? This has been here before with us. Could we? Rochelle, what do you recommend? I hate to deny something and keep them from being able to come back for a whole year. Could we pass? Basically up to you. Could we pass and not re-docket it? I mean, it kind of leaves it in limbo, but procedurally, is that an option? I have never seen that done. You could always postpone it again and instruct, I think, that written notification be sent to the applicant that if they do not appear at the next meeting, you will be compelled to disapprove this based on a lack of information to support the request. That way at least the applicant would be put on notice, and that written notice could include the fact that if this is disapproved as opposed to withdrawn, you will be prohibited from making the same application for one year from the disapproval, and that way they'd be put on notice. Do I have a motion to that effect, please? I'd like to make the motion as Rochelle stated it. I'll second. Any questions? All in favor, please signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. ZV-2010100, Total Grace Baptist Church. No one here to represent Total Grace. Staff, how do you want to deal with this the same way? We've talked to Pastor Robinson a day or so ago. He wants to postpone, and we're going to be meeting him on site early next week. I have a motion from the board. So moved. We have a motion to postpone. Is this to December? Yes, to December. December the 10th. Do I have a second? Second. We have a first and second motion on the floor. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. KC2010102 Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church. Staff has recommended approval. Are you here? Yes, please. Appeals for a conditional use permit. Thank you. Tell us who you are, please. I'm Dorothy Porter. And you're representing? Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church. The staff has recommended approval, but there are an awful lot of conditions, eight of them. Have you read and understand these conditions? I feel they're doable. I feel they're doable, especially on the parking part. Yes. Because Evergreen Baptist Church is right next door, and they're going to also own this facility. So it sounds weird, but they'll be leasing parking from themselves. And I've already talked to Reverend Bruton, who's sitting back there, along with some of his committee members, and they're all fine with putting the postings there, saying that parking is only allowed during the church service time, but on weekdays it's allotted for the literacy center. Well, that was going to be my question to you, because in going by there, I was wondering how you were going to work that parking situation out with the both of you. That's how. Mm-hmm. Any questions from the board? Any concerns? Well, that was – parking was my only concern, Mr. Chair, and that seems to be resolved. We don't have any questions or concerns, and the floor is open for a motion, please. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. We talked in the staff report a little bit about the required side yard. since these three lots that are going to be consolidated won't be consolidated with the church property. We verified this morning it's a five-foot side yard, not three feet, which is shown on their site plan. So they're going to have to pick up two feet somewhere, either by, preferably by reducing the width of the building. There might be a little opportunity to reduce the width of the traffic aisle. That's 24 feet on the site plan. But there's some concern about that because of the sidewalk along the building and as well as stairs along that sidewalk that will go to the upper floor living unit. So we probably need to ask the applicant about how they're going to pick up that two feet. Well, we can take it over from the right side, move it to the left, reducing it, because downstairs in the center of it, you don't have the actual floor plan. There's a lot of cubicles there. So we would just reduce the space that would be in the center part of it downstairs. And upstairs, you end up having the bedrooms backing up to the right side. So rather than it being like a 9 by 13, it can be a 9 by 10 or 9 by 12, whatever happens to work. But the architect will finalize that. Let me ask the question to the staff and to engineering over there. Is this something that can be approved subject to these conditions, this condition being met, or do they need to delay this until you all check to make sure they're doing it the way you want it done? I think if we just change that first condition to reflect that there will be a revised site plan, And since they are not requesting a variance, the revised site plan would be to allow them to come into compliance with the side yard requirement. Will somebody write that up, please, up there? So is this their first knowledge of this as well? They should have gotten wind of it when they read the staff report. I'm not sure verbally. But she has been consulting very closely with building inspection and traffic engineering on this. So it may not look like it on paper, but there's been a lot of thought going into how this is all laid out. Was that part of the wind we got the other night? Part of the what? Part of the wind was the other night. I guess I'm missing it. I don't get it. Inside joke. I don't know. Just funny with that. But, you know, I think sometimes we expect people to interpret things that should happen that is not down in writing that ought to happen, and that's why I made that comment to you. Oh, okay. If it can work out the way it's been suggested, then I don't have a problem with them working it out, and the staff, you all need to work to make sure they are doing what you all want them to do. Any questions here? I have a question whether we should include after on-site parking and narrowing of the building or something like that. If the concern here is that right now the building as submitted is too wide and it needs to be two feet narrower. That first condition acknowledges that there may be some revisions required to satisfy the requirements of the divisions of building inspection, which is basically the entity that enforces the zoning ordinance requirements. Yeah, I'm just wondering if we need to be more precise of what's there is fine. There's no problem with adding that, but I think it would be covered either way. Okay. I agree with what you're saying, but I think our member here is right also. We don't want them to do something and then it comes back to them if they haven't done what they're supposed to do. You know, I don't think we ought to put them in that type of situation. I think it needs to be down in writing as to what is expected of them within this condition as well, and then they will know that if they go against that, they have made a mistake. As I read this right here, that may be required to satisfy the requirements of the divisions of building inspection and traffic engineering. May. In what respect? That's how I read it, that it was unsure, and later on it was going to be determined what the true side requirement is, whether it's three or five, and the technical people had to truly look it up. All we're trying to do is make sure you don't have to go in there and redo something. Right. You understand what I'm saying? Right. Either way, it's going to get done. But I read that as I may, and I was going to find out for sure, which I did today. And so now I know that I've got work to go back and do to make the correction so that the condition is met. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Now that it's been determined that they need a five-foot side yard, there might be several ways of coming up with that. And I think if we say it has to be a building modification, that would tie their hands. They should just meet the requirements in a way that satisfies the city's owning the property. I agree. And that's what we'll do. Thank you. I agree with that. Any other comments? Any other concerns? Then we'll ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2010-102 Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church's appeal for a conditional use permit to construct and occupy a new Sunday School and Literacy Center with two second-floor apartments and accessory parking in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on properties located at 739, 741, and 734 Florida Street Council District 1 be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, including the modest amendment today. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck to you on this. Thank you. Let's see here. Now we've got the last two cases, I believe, are cases where they've been recommended for disapproval. A-202010-90 NCJPM properties. That case has been, that's in an error, excuse me. I'm glad that's in an error, too. That was the wind damage. It had to be wind for it to blow back to us so fast. A2010-103, Randall Peterson. I'm Lyndon Platt with Eagle Engineering. Mr. Peterson hasn't gotten here yet, so he was going to be the one to explain it. It's my understanding all they're trying to do is put a microwave in their basement with some humanity that went with that. In this case, Mr. Peterson appeals for an administrative review to allow his second kitchen in a single-family residential R1B zone on property located at 1535, 1545 Lakewood Drive, and Council District 5. And the staff has recommended disapproval, and they've given three reasons why. I'll let the staff take this, and then we'll listen to what they have to say, and then hopefully you'll manage to get here. Okay. If not, I'll have to request a post-mortem. All right. The number of kitchens is used to basically define how many living units are on a particular property. This property is zoned for one living unit, so the general issue with allowing second kitchens is it kind of creates an opportunity to create another living unit, which would be a circumvention of the limits of the zoning ordinance. This board has approved second kitchens on a few occasions, but there's always been special living situations involved, such as an elderly person that wants to maintain some level of independence while living with a family member. Another situation has come up where there might be a handicapped person, someone with some kind of disability, where in the same situation they want to be able to maintain a certain amount of independence in a common living situation. I think another situation where we didn't reference in our staff report, I think we had one case where for religious purposes in the food preparation, one living unit needed to have separate cooking facilities for religious purposes, and that was granted. This particular application did not indicate any special circumstances at all. So our hands were pretty much tied. We didn't have anything to evaluate, anything to go on. So that's why we had to recommend disapproval. Well, I'm not going to make any comments on this, because then if the gentleman doesn't show up, we'll have to do it again next month. But I would like for you to put that up on the screen, if you would. Which part's that? The map we have here of this design. Oh, the site plan? Yeah, the plan. Mr. Chair, I have a question that's just an aside. I was wondering why the address has two numbers. Is this a double lot? It originally was a double lot, but it has been consolidated into one lot now. Thank you. Now, looking at that, where is the kitchen going to be? Where is the second kitchen? The second kitchen was supposed to be in the basement somewhere around the Navy Building Inspection may have a better handle on it. I know they have a building permit for the house, but they don't, you know, they've stopped them to do anything on the basement. Well, in looking at this, I just couldn't figure out where it was going to be because it doesn't indicate on you where it's going to be. And that's why I asked that question. So I don't know if anybody else said or not. But, you know, it could be anywhere there, what I think. We didn't really pick on that part of it too much because it doesn't really matter as far as the application of the ordinance. Okay. Maybe I'm too nosy. So I have a question. How did this arise then? Since building inspection, did they apply for building permit? And in there, it indicated it was going to have a second kitchen facility, which by definition has to include more than a microwave? Yeah, it got caught in plan review. So when they proposed the plan, it showed enough that we could consider it to be two kitchens. And this is an age-old problem, especially in some of these larger homes, where they have finished basements and they want entertainment areas. well, the way the ordinance is written, it doesn't take a lot to have a second kitchen. So here we are. Well, I guess I would ask you a question. And again, I don't think we ought to get too deep into this and have to do it all over again next month. I think at this time probably the best thing is postponement until December 10th. Is that your recommendation? Yes. So we have a request for postponement in this case until December 10th. Does anyone have any questions regarding that? Ms. Bowman, does it actually have to be continued at this point? Have we? Well, you haven't heard much evidence, but I would probably be a little more comfortable with that. Okay. So do I have a motion to continue it? December 10th, is that what you want, sir? That would be fine. Anyone want to make a motion? So moved. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion on the floor and a second to continue this to December the 10th. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We'll see you December the 10th, sir. Round that rascal up and bring him on in here. Hopefully I'll have him here next time. 30 minute hearing. Amazing. See how... Okay. Now that I have taken care to get you all out here shopping on time, say thank you. Is there anything the board, any concerns from the board? Okay, let's hear what you got over there. Okay, we have the meeting and filing schedule that was distributed to you last month that needs to be adopted by the board. Schedules. The meeting and filing schedule for next year. The schedule right here, I guess you're talking about. Any questions or concerns from the Board or not, let's hear a motion to adopt. I move that we adopt. Let's hear a second, please. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. It's adopted. All right. All right. Next item is Mr. Weber, Mr. Richard Weber needs to be reappointed to the Landscape Review Committee, and we also need to do a replacement. We'll do Richard's thing first. Go ahead and reappoint him, and then we need to discuss another little item about that. I think you've misspoken there. I'm on the Landscape Review Committee. Yeah? Richard Weber needs to be reappointed. You're on for the duration of your stay on the Board of Adjustment. Yeah, you're on representing Board of Adjustments. They're for your terms, but the person that's on the Board stays on for their Board of Adjustment term unless you want to be taken off. Okay. So you don't need to be reappointed. So what do we do about Weber? We just need to reappoint Mr. Weber because his term has expired. Do I have a motion to? Mr. Chairman, I'll move that Richard Weber be appointed for another four-year term. Reappointed. Reappointed for another four-year term. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second in the reappointment of Mr. Richard Weber to serve on the Landscape Review Committee. All in favor signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. And then another issue with that, Melissa Stephan, who was our tree board member, is no longer on the tree board, and so she's no longer eligible to serve on the Landscape Review Committee, and we just found this out this week. So Melissa Stephan, the second one from the last on the list. So we have another person, Karen Angelucci. She is the chair of the tree board, and she would like to be appointed to the Landscape Review Committee. So if you would like to do that at this time, that would be fine. Karen Angelucci? We have a request for replace Melissa Steffen. To replace Melissa Steffen. And the recommendation is for Karen Angelucci to be in that replacement spot. Do I hear a motion to accept the recommendation? So moved. Do I have a second? All in favor signify by saying aye, please. Aye. She's in. Great. She'll be happy about that. And we have an audio conference on Wednesday, December 8th at 4 o'clock in our conference room. It's called Staying Out of Court by Avoiding Pitfalls, and it will give you one and a half hours of training credit if you choose to attend. And what room is that in? In our conference room over in the Phoenix building up on the seventh floor. Seventh floor. And four o'clock? Four o'clock. Wednesday, December 8th. December 8th. And if you are interested in attending, if you could let me know by the end of the day, Tuesday afternoon, December 7th, and I can be sure that there are enough seats available. Will we be emailed on that? Yes. If you would, please. The reason why I haven't attended some of those is because I tape my show on Wednesdays, and normally that's around during that time. But since you're holding, I might be able to make this one. I'll try to make it. Okay. Any questions? I've got one last. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. One of our cases for next month that will be coming up December 10th is a conditional use request from Vulcan Materials to expand their underground mine out off Old Richmond Road. They've submitted quite a lengthy technical document with their application. It would cost about $500 per copy. To copy that and get each of you a copy would be $3,500. So we have a hard copy of that technical document. It's a reasonableness review conducted by a third party, selected jointly by the applicant, as well as Floral Cliff Nature Sanctuary, who was involved years ago when a very controversial case was considered there. In any case, we have that four-inch document on file in our office for those of you who want to look at it. I know we had a similar case before where some of the board members were disappointed they didn't get a look at the technical documents before the hearing. So I just wanted to make sure you were aware that that was available. We also have that document on a disc. If some of you want to take the disc to look at it, we have one, but we can get more discs. If you all would prefer that we get you more discs, we can do that and get them in the mail to you. I think we ought to be able to look at it. I'd like to have one mail. I'd like to have one. I'd like to have one. Okay. Sounds like you all want to get a disc. Is this going to be a testy case? Well, I guess all I can say is they've submitted their application and the letters have gone out. Normally that means it's a testy case. I might be in. I think I'm going to Columbia. That's right. Anything else, staff? If anybody's really desperate to start looking at this, here's the one we have so far. I'd like to take it with me if you don't mind. You got it. If we don't have anything else on the agenda, then I hear a motion to adjourn, please. All in favor? All right. All right. Adjourn. Happy Thanksgiving, you all. Thank you. The End Cattle in the marketplace, scatterings of oranges. He looks around and around, he sees angels in the architecture, spinning in infinity. He says, amen, hallelujah, if you would be my bodyguard, I can be your long lost pal. I can call you Betty, Betty, when you call me, you call me, yeah, call me, na, na, na, na. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Thank you. If you'd like a bodyguard Black and carbon green Just take those old records on the shelf I said listen to them by myself Today's music ain't got the same soul I like that old time of rock and roll Don't try to take me to a disco You'll never even get me out on the floor In ten minutes I'll be late for the door I like that old time of rock and roll Still like that old time rock and roll That kind of music just soothes my soul I reminisce about the days of old When that old time rock and roll We'll be right back.