# Board of Adjustment Meeting - December 10, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 10, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1808 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1808?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-12-10 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 14,666 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 10, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mr. Chairman presiding. The board considered nine agenda items involving variances, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews. During the meeting, the board took nine motions and votes, heard six public comments, and addressed requests from applicants seeking relief from zoning regulations or approval for conditional uses. The board approved five of the nine items under consideration. These included a variance for Ken and Lindsay Donworth to reduce yard setback requirements from 35 feet to 20 feet; a variance for Tates Creek South Shell Ltd. Partnership for car wash mechanical rooms; a conditional use permit for Triology Health Services to operate an assisted living facility; a conditional use permit for LWC, LLC (Mr. Money USA) to operate a pawn shop; an amendment to the conditional use permit for Imani Family Life Center's child care center; and an administrative review for Randall Peterson regarding a second kitchen. Two items were deferred for further consideration: Total Grace Baptist Church's request for a conditional use permit for parking expansion and associated variances, and Vulcan Construction Materials' request for a conditional use permit for underground mining. One application was denied: B & S Restaurant Management's request for a conditional use permit for live entertainment and an associated variance. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 10, 2010: - Mr. Chairman - Mr. Murphy - Mr. Briggs - Lewis - Kathy - Rochelle - Dick - Ken and Lindsay Donworth - Charlotte - Patrick - Pat Sullivan - Lynn Pettigo - Chaz Height - Brutus Clay - Ben Campbell - Bob Cornett - Matt Will - John Carman - Reverend Willis Polk - Leo Witt - Deborah Tatum - Marie Copeland - Joe Putnam - Molly Jamison - William S. Chapman - Randall Peterson - Don Todd - Richard Hopgood No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took nine votes on December 10, 2010. All votes were conducted by voice vote, with a consistent voting pattern across all items: four members voting in favor and one member voting against. **V-2010-108** [timestamp: 00:17:27] — Approval of variance to reduce required perimeter setback from 21 feet to 15 feet and residential zone setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for construction of car wash mechanical rooms in a B-6P zone on property at 4201 Saron Drive. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **CV-2010-98** [timestamp: 00:19:10] — Disapproval of conditional use permit for live entertainment and dancing at a restaurant/bar and variance to reduce 100-foot residential setback to 0 feet in a B-1 zone on property at 120 W. Maxwell Street. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **CV-2010-100** [timestamp: 00:20:13] — Postponement of conditional use permit to expand parking and variances to reduce front yard setbacks to 0 feet in R-1C and R-3 zones on properties at 1313 and 1317 N. Limestone Street. **Postponed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **C-2010-88** [timestamp: 00:24:10] — Approval of conditional use permit for assisted living facility and nursing home in R-3 zone on property at 2599 Old Rosebud Road. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **C-2010-107** [timestamp: 00:25:45] — Approval of conditional use permit for pawn shop in B-3 zone on property at 407 W. New Circle Road. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **C-2010-109** [timestamp: 00:28:37] — Approval of amendment to conditional use permit to eliminate outdoor play area requirement for after-school program in R-3 zone on property at 1555 Georgetown Road. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **A-2010-103** [timestamp: 00:34:26] — Approval of administrative review to allow second kitchen facilities in single-family residence in R-1B zone on property at 1535/1545 Lakewood Drive. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **C-2010-110** [timestamp: 00:37:53] — Postponement of conditional use permit for underground mining in A-R and B-1 zones on properties at 7200, 7210, and 7230 Turner Station Road. **Postponed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. **V-2010-105** [timestamp: 01:40:43] — Approval of variance to reduce required yard along Montclair Drive from 35 feet to 20 feet for detached garage in R-1C zone on property at 1251 Eldemere Road. **Passed 4-1.** Voting for: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murphy, Lewis, Kathy. Voting against: Dick. ## Public Comment The meeting included public comments on two primary matters: a proposed variance and a mining case. **ND1 Zoning Process and Variance Concerns** Deborah Tatum [timestamp: 00:39:31] clarified that the Montclair neighborhood is undergoing a second hearing on ND1 zoning due to three verbiage changes. She emphasized that the current appeal should not undermine the credibility of the upcoming council vote. Marie Copeland [timestamp: 00:41:41] expressed concern that approving the variance would undermine the credibility of the ND1 zoning process, which took three years to develop and was supported by 80% of neighborhood respondents. **Support for the Proposed Variance** Brutus Clay [timestamp: 00:24:26] stated that the proposed garage would be a positive addition to the neighborhood, improve property values, and support the family's investment in the home. Ben Campbell [timestamp: 00:26:36], speaking as a residential appraiser, affirmed that the proposed design would be appropriate and improve the neighborhood, and recommended approval. Lynn Pettigo [timestamp: 01:27:42] explained the design rationale, noting that the garage was designed to enhance safety, privacy, and usability of the backyard, and to align with modern lifestyle needs and neighborhood character. **Mining Case Postponement Request** Don Todd [timestamp: 00:03:37], representing neighborhood associations, requested postponement of the Vulcan mining case to allow time for review of documents and discussion of concerns. ## Appointments The following appointments to the Board of Adjustment were made: * **Lewis** was appointed to the Board of Adjustment * **Kathy** was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment * **Mr. Griggs** was appointed to the Board of Adjustment ## Contested Items **ND1 Zoning and Donworth Variance** A heated discussion emerged regarding whether approval of the Donworth variance would establish a problematic precedent for the upcoming ND1 zoning vote. Speakers disagreed on the relationship between these two matters. Some participants argued that the variance should be evaluated independently of the ND1 zoning process and decided on its own merits, without consideration of how it might influence the broader zoning initiative. Others expressed concern that approving the variance could undermine the credibility of the ND1 zoning vote or set an unwanted precedent that would complicate future zoning decisions. The debate reflected tension between treating individual applications on a case-by-case basis versus considering their cumulative impact on broader planning goals. **Vulcan Mining Proposal** Community opposition to the Vulcan mining case centered on neighborhood associations' concerns about the proposed mining operation. Residents raised objections to the proposal, citing the need for additional time to review relevant documents and conduct community discussion before proceeding. In response to this community input, a request was made to postpone consideration of the mining case, allowing stakeholders adequate opportunity to examine the proposal's details and implications before the matter moved forward for decision. ## Ken and Lindsay Donworth - Variance to reduce yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet The Board considered a variance request from Ken and Lindsay Donworth to reduce the required side yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet for a detached garage on a corner lot located in a single-family residential zone [timestamp: 00:38:53]. **Presentation and Evidence** The applicants presented design plans for the proposed garage and provided evidence supporting their request. They demonstrated that the lot's unique configuration created practical constraints for meeting the standard 35-foot setback requirement. The applicants also presented documentation of historical variance patterns in the neighborhood, suggesting that similar relief had been granted to other properties in the area. **Support** The applicants presented evidence of neighbor support for the variance request, indicating community acceptance of the proposed reduction. **Board Discussion** The Board members involved in the discussion included Pat Sullivan, Lynn Pettigo, Chaz Height, Brutus Clay, Ben Campbell, Deborah Tatum, and Marie Copeland. **Outcome** The Board approved the variance request. The approval was granted with conditions, though the specific conditions are not detailed in the available information. ## Tates Creek South Shell Ltd. Partnership - Variance for car wash mechanical room **Identifier:** V-2010-108 The Board reviewed a variance request submitted by Tates Creek South Shell Ltd. Partnership to reduce perimeter and residential zone setbacks for mechanical rooms at a car wash facility located in a planned shopping center zone. [timestamp: 00:13:14] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the variance request and recommended approval. The recommendation was based on several factors, including the minimal impact of the proposed variance, the existing use context, and the availability of screening for the mechanical rooms. **Board Action** The Board approved the variance request with conditions. Key speakers in the discussion included Bob Cornett and the Board Chairman. ## B & S Restaurant Management - Conditional use for live entertainment and variance **Case Number:** CV-2010-98 **Request:** The Board considered a conditional use permit for live entertainment and a variance to eliminate a 100-foot residential setback for B & S Restaurant Management. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended postponement of the matter due to insufficient information being provided. **Key Participants:** Mr. Chairman and Mr. Murphy participated in the discussion. **Board Action:** The Board disapproved the application due to lack of information. **Transcript Location:** [timestamp: 00:06:27] ## Total Grace Baptist Church - Conditional use for parking expansion and variances **Case Number:** CV-2010-100 **Request:** The Board considered a conditional use permit for Total Grace Baptist Church to expand parking and reduce front yard setbacks in residential zones. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended postponement of the case due to incomplete information and design concerns. **Key Participants:** Mr. Chairman and Mr. Murphy were the primary speakers during discussion of this item. **Outcome:** The Board voted to defer the case for one month, postponing further consideration pending receipt of additional information and resolution of design issues identified by staff. ## Triology Health Services - Conditional use for assisted living facility The Board reviewed a conditional use permit application (C-2010-88) for Triology Health Services to operate an assisted living facility and nursing home in a planned neighborhood residential zone. [timestamp: 00:21:56] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to seven conditions. The applicant, represented by Glenn Hoskins, presented the application to the Board. **Key Development** A significant aspect of the review was the applicant's presentation of a resolution with the Hamburg Homeowners Association, indicating coordination between the project developer and the neighboring residential community. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit with conditions. The approval was contingent upon the applicant's compliance with the seven conditions outlined by staff, which were designed to address land use compatibility and operational standards for the facility within the residential zone. ## LWC, LLC (Mr. Money USA) - Conditional use for pawn shop The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2010-107) for LWC, LLC to operate a pawn shop in a highway service business zone. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to four conditions. Matt Will and the Board Chairman were key participants in the discussion. **Applicant Response** The applicant confirmed compliance with the proposed conditions for the permit. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit with conditions [timestamp: 00:24:40]. ## Imani Family Life Center - Amendment to child care center conditional use **Case Number:** C-2010-109 **Overview** The Board considered an amendment to the conditional use permit for Imani Family Life Center's child care center. The proposed amendment sought to eliminate the outdoor play area requirement for after-school programs. [timestamp: 00:26:19] **Staff Recommendation and Applicant Response** Staff recommended approval of the amendment with two conditions. The applicant, represented by John Carman, confirmed compliance with the recommended conditions. **Board Action** The Board approved the amendment with conditions. ## Vulcan Construction Materials - Conditional use for underground mining The Board considered a conditional use permit for Vulcan Construction Materials to conduct underground limestone mining in agricultural and neighborhood business zones [timestamp: 00:36:44]. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions. **Key Speakers and Positions** The following individuals participated in the discussion: - Don Todd - Richard Hopgood - Mr. Chairman **Concerns Raised** A neighborhood representative requested that the Board postpone consideration of the case, indicating community concerns about the proposed mining operation. **Outcome** The Board voted to defer the case, postponing it for one month to allow for further consideration and community input. ## Randall Peterson - Administrative review for second kitchen [timestamp: 00:30:49] The Board reviewed an administrative appeal submitted by Randall Peterson requesting permission to install a second kitchen in a single-family residence. **Initial Staff Position and Change** Staff initially recommended disapproval of the appeal. However, after reviewing detailed floor plans submitted by the applicant, staff revised their recommendation to approval. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Randall Peterson, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Murphy. **Outcome** The Board approved the administrative appeal, allowing the second kitchen in the single-family residence. --- ## Decisions - **V-2010-108** — passed (4-1): Approval of variance to reduce required perimeter setback from 21 feet to 15 feet and residential zone setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for construction of car wash mechanical rooms in a B-6P zone on property at 4201 Saron Drive - **CV-2010-98** — passed (4-1): Disapproval of conditional use permit for live entertainment and dancing at a restaurant/bar and variance to reduce 100-foot residential setback to 0 feet in a B-1 zone on property at 120 W. Maxwell Street - **CV-2010-100** — postponed (4-1): Postponement of conditional use permit to expand parking and variances to reduce front yard setbacks to 0 feet in R-1C and R-3 zones on properties at 1313 and 1317 N. Limestone Street - **C-2010-88** — passed (4-1): Approval of conditional use permit for assisted living facility and nursing home in R-3 zone on property at 2599 Old Rosebud Road with seven conditions - **C-2010-107** — passed (4-1): Approval of conditional use permit for pawn shop in B-3 zone on property at 407 W. New Circle Road with four conditions - **C-2010-109** — passed (4-1): Approval of amendment to conditional use permit to eliminate outdoor play area requirement for after-school program in R-3 zone on property at 1555 Georgetown Road with two conditions - **A-2010-103** — passed (4-1): Approval of administrative review to allow second kitchen facilities in single-family residence in R-1B zone on property at 1535/1545 Lakewood Drive - **C-2010-110** — postponed (4-1): Postponement of conditional use permit for underground mining in A-R and B-1 zones on properties at 7200, 7210, and 7230 Turner Station Road - **V-2010-105** — passed (4-1): Approval of variance to reduce required yard along Montclair Drive from 35 feet to 20 feet for detached garage in R-1C zone on property at 1251 Eldemere Road with acknowledgment of compliance with ND1 guidelines --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Good afternoon. It is now 1 o'clock and time for us to get the Board of Adjustment meeting for December the 10th on the way. We're going to open a meeting here with approval of the minutes for November the 19th. And if the Board has reviewed these minutes, I will accept a motion to accept, please. So moved, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion to accept. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. We're also going to ask if you have cell phones in your pockets or purses, if you would either turn them off or put them on silent. And if you have to use your phone, we ask that you step outside, please. Those of you who are going to testify, I would like for you to stand. Any of you that plan to testify today, I would like for you to stand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth and hold truth, nothing but the truth? I can't hear you? Thank you. Have a seat. We're going to sound the agenda. Those cases that have been recommended by the staff for disapproval will be moving closer to the end of the program. Those cases that have been requesting postpone or withdrawal will take you just shortly. and the other cases where there are no one here to contest or to complain about, then we will take those cases in order as they come. But at this time, we will sound the agenda and ask for those people who are here as a concern, a party for the case, for or against, if you don't mind. Case number one, V20105, Ken and Lizzie Donworth. The staff has recommended disapproval. Are you all here? All right. Then we will take your case down the road, okay? Mr. Chairman. Is there anyone here in here that's in opposition to this case? No one in opposition? Yes, sir. Did you want to ask if there's any withdrawals or postponements? I've got at least one withdrawal to report on. Then let me do that first, okay. Do we have any postponements? Components there. Give us the case number, please. Number six. Page. Page four, KC 2010-110 Vulcan Construction. My name is Don Todd. Mr. Chairman, I represent the old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association and Boones Creek Neighborhood Association. And as my understanding, this case is on for the first time. And we, my constituents, my clients, have just had an opportunity to begin to review this. And there are a number of issues that we would like to raise that would indicate, I think, the need to continue this case. Is there anyone here from Vulcan that has concerns? regarding the request. Mr. Chairman Richard Hopgood on behalf of Vulcan Materials, we do not want to postpone it. We have folks here from out of town, a lot of preparation, and working with the Nature Preserve for a number of months, and we'd like to go forward. And what I'm going to suggest that you three gentlemen do is to step out there in the hall and put your boxing gloves on and see if you can come to some kind of conclusion or agreement as to how we should deal with this case today and before I make the decision whether we go on or whether we don't. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements? Any requests for withdrawals? Any requests for withdrawals? Staff? We have a written letter of withdrawal for the signage appeal. It's towards the end of the agenda on page 5. Under Section E, Number 1, A2010-90, that's NCJPM properties, they have withdrawn that appeal. Withdrawn. All right. Any other staff? Is that all you have? That's all for me. All right. Then we will continue with the cases we have here to be heard. We will call the Ken and Lindsay Donworth case again. Is there anyone here in opposition to that case? No opposition. We'll take you shortly. V2010108, Taste Creek South Shell, LTD Partnership. Is anyone here? Anyone here in opposition to that case? The staff has recommended approval of that case, so we will take you very shortly. Someone may walk in that's involved in it, but I kind of doubt it. Next case is CV2010-98, B&S Restaurant Management. Appeals for conditional use permit to provide live entertainment. The staff has recommended postponement. Is anyone here from B&S? Have we heard this once before? Well, there was a discussion at the last hearing, concerns by the board about this applicant not appearing before you the last two times. We, in accordance with your direction, we did send them a letter advising them that it most likely would not be postponed again and that they better come to the hearing if they were interested in pursuing it. Did not hear a thing back, so. How would we go about this, getting rid of this? You can basically disapprove. If you look at the findings supporting postponement, they are based for the most part on the fact that you do not have sufficient information to be able to make a determination on this case. And those would be sufficient findings for disapproval should you choose to take that out. Could you, would we just do what we have here in the conditions here, which I don't see? In essence, you would accept the staff report as evidence to support those findings that you have insufficient information to receive. I think that, did you do a markup, Jim, on using those for disapproval? No. I think there was very little that needed to be changed. For instance, we had in A, written assurance has not yet been provided. We would just take the yet out of there. They've not given us any written assurance. But for the most part, those findings A, B, and C would be sufficient legally to support a finding of disapproval based on lack of information. Then when we get to this case, we'll ask the board for a motion on that. Okay. Next case is CV 21010100. The Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate see what their options are. So I don't expect them to come today. Is this their first time before us with this? No, it's not. I didn't think so. So we'll work with them. If you can just go ahead and postpone it today, we'll work with them. And if they're not going to pursue it, try to get a withdrawal. We have a question, Bert, please. If we agree to postpone this and the previous case as well, does it automatically appear on next month's docket, or what's the process? It does, unless in the interim they withdraw. Okay. We will deal with this here shortly. Case C2010-88 Trilogy Health Services. Now, this is a continuous hearing relative to this case because I understand I was out when you heard it before. But this has come back, I think it was two months ago you heard this. This is the case that you're hearing. The staff has recommended approval, and there are several conditions. Is anyone here from Trilogy? Anyone in opposition to this case? Anyone in opposition to this case? And we'll hear you shortly. C2010-110 Vulcan Construction they're out boxing so we'll talk to them when they get through round one hopefully or round two NCJPM properties 107. Okay. All right. The staff has recommended disapproval. Is anyone here from NCJPM? I'm sorry, that's the one that's been withdrawn. That's the one that's been withdrawn. That is withdrawn. I think if you go back, we might have missed two cases. Okay. Withdraw. Got to go back? Missed two cases. On page 4, Mr. Money and Amani. Amani. Mr. Money, C-2010107, LWC, LLC, Mr. Money. Is anyone here representing Mr. Money? Anyone in opposition to this case? Mr. Money, the staff has recommended approval, so we will hear you very shortly. C-2010-109, Imani Family Life Center, appeals for an amendment to previously approved conditional use permit for a child care center. Is anyone here representing Imani? Anyone in opposition to this case? The staff has recommended approval, so we will listen to this case very shortly. That takes us down to the last one, which I think is A2010103, Randall Peterson. That case was presented to us as one where the staff has recommended disapproval, But since that time the staff member spoke to me where they have, they will give us information relative to this case that they will be recommending that this case be approved. So we will hear the Randall Peterson case. Is Mr. Peterson here? Is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case? And we will hear you very shortly. All right. I think that's it. So we will start. up front here with case number Tates Creek South Shell Limited Partnership. Tates Creek, come forward sir. Tell us who you are. This is an appeals for a variance to reduce the required perimeter setback from 21 feet to 15 feet and the setback from a residential zone from 20 feet to 15 feet for construction of a car wash, mechanical rooms, plans, shopping, a planned shopping center, B6P zone on property located at 4201 Seren Drive in Council District 9. Now, the staff has recommended approval with two conditions. So will you tell us who you are and tell us if you understand those conditions and if you've read them, please? My name is Bob Cornett. I'm with the Roberts Group representing the owner on his behalf. We do accept the conditions, understand those conditions. Any questions? What's your last name again, sir? Your last name again? Cornett. Any questions for Mr. Cornett, staff, or more? I have a question for the staff. In your report you say that the zoning regulations require 100 feet separation now, and it used to be 50. What is the reason for such a long distance? Are you talking about the perimeter setback or the residential area? Well, I thought that the 100 feet had to do with these car washes in the P6 zone. Well, there's two different setbacks here that are that issue. Well, I was wondering, is there a particular setback for car washes in the P6? Yes, from a residential zone, it's 100 feet. The general rationale there is just possibility of disturbance from noise. A lot of noise with the car wash. Yeah. And I imagine a lot of that noise is from the compressor. So I'm wondering why this compressor couldn't be moved back next to the shell station instead of being right there next to that residential lot. It still would not be 100 feet. I'm sorry? It would not be 100 feet from the building. There's other equipment that's required for this upgrade of the car wash equipment that's being replaced. This room is also for storage of soap and wax as well as the compressor. It looked like there were two rooms being added. Is one for the compressor and one for the soap and wax? Well, one room is actually an existing room. We're cleaning up conditions. somehow it was constructed and did not agree with the development plan that was approved several years ago. So we're cleaning up some conditions here. The room on the front is actually existing. Well, it just worries me that under normal circumstances, this compressor would need to be 100 feet away from a residential zone. You've already got a variance to go down to 20 feet, and you're adding a larger compressor, it seems like since air is easy to move down a pipe, you could put this compressor closer to your building and further away from the residential lot. And I don't know why soap and wax couldn't be mounted on top of the building. I'm just thinking there might be ways that would cost a little bit more perhaps, but wouldn't require a variance. I don't really have an answer for you. I don't design the equipment. and then I just do the land and the P&Z work for the company. Okay. Well, that was my question, basically, and I don't know that I can support this without a good reason. Thank you. It would still require variance. I'm sorry? It still would require a variance from this body. Well, you've got a variance right now to 20 feet. Okay. Unless, staff, if I'm misunderstanding this, No, it's already been reduced. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Don't you have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move that item 2010-108, Tates Creek South Shell Partnership, appeal for a variance to reduce the required perimeter setback from 21 feet to 15 feet and setback from the residential zone from 20 feet to 15 feet for construction of car wash, mechanical rooms and planned shopping center B6P zone on property located at 4201 Saran Drive be approved with the conditions set forth by the staff. Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye. 4 to 1, it passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. This next case is the one we talked about with the CV2010-98 BNS Restrict Management Appeals for Conditional Use Permit. The staff recommends that this case be postponed, and it's been before us on several cases, several times. I would like to know what the Board's feelings are about this. We have had discussions from our legal over there how we could get this case off the books, I guess, relative to the reasons that the staff have given in A, B, and C. What is your pleasure? I feel like they've been on this agenda for, I think, three months. Is that correct? Has it been three months that they've been on the? Yes. two months, and they haven't responded to any communications from you all? That's correct. I would be in favor of disapproving. Would you put that in the form of a motion, please? I move that we disapprove. C. V. 2010-98 B&S, Restaurant Management Appeals for a Conditional Use Permit to provide the entertainment, live entertainment, DJing bands and dancing at a restaurant bar, and a variance to reduce the required 100-foot setback, a residential zone to zero feet in the neighborhood business, V1 zone on property located at 120, a.k.a. 122 West Maxwell Street, for the reasons that we haven't had sufficient information to grant this appeal as indicated by the staff in their staff report. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Next case is Total Grace. CV2-2010-100 Total Grace Baptist Church Appeals for Conditional Use Permit to expand the parking area and variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet in a single-family residential R1C zone and 20 feet to 0 feet in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on properties located at 1313 and 1317 North Line, Stone Street. If the staff has recommended postponement, staff, you want to? I know it's frustrating dealing with these that get postponed several times, but we have been working with this applicant pretty closely. They were kind of hit hard by our findings when we went on site. So are you, as a staff member, recommending that the board allow this postponement to go for another month? I'd recommend we go at least with one more postponement, and we'll have a heart-to-heart with them and say they need to withdraw or come up with a significantly different proposal. Can I get a motion? Is that a specific, please? Move to postpone for one month. Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. One month. The next case we have here is a continued case, C-201088, Trilogy Health Services, LLC, appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and occupy an assisted living facility, combined residential assisted living facility and nursing home, and all auxiliary uses related thereto. In a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on a property located on a portion of 2999 Old Rosewood Road, Council District 6, The staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Do we have anyone here representing this case and anyone here in opposition to this case? If not, give your name, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Glenn Hoskins. I'm here representing the applicant trilogy health services. We have reviewed and understand and fully agree with the conditions for approval. And since the last time we were here, we were able to work out a mutually agreeable agreement with the Hamburg Homeowners Association, which had been here raising some issues at the October meeting. I have a signed agreement. I would like to give that to Mr. Marks to make that an official part of the record. And we would ask for the board's approval, please. Any questions from the board? Mr. Chairman, this is the case that I recused myself from, I think, when it was on two months ago, because Mr. Hoskins is my law partner, and I want to just continue that recusal, please. You said that publicly, didn't you? I did. He's your law partner? Yes. Good. Well, Mr. Hoskins, I'd like to, Mr. Chair, if I may, I know last time we had quite a bit of opposition. Obviously, Mr. Hoskins, that has been worked out. I certainly support the plan, and unless the board has any other questions, we heard quite a bit from you and the opposition. at our last meeting, or the meeting before that. And so I'm prepared to move forward, unless there's other questions by other members of the Board. Thank you. I do want to commend my client, Leo Witt, who's in the audience. He was the mover and shaker with meeting with the association several times and working out the terms of the agreement that was agreeable to them and gave them the comfort level that they were looking for. So thank you very much. Very good. We'll hear a motion, please. Yes, sir. Item C, 2010-88, Trilogy Health Services appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and occupy an assisted living facility, combined residential assisted living facility and nursing home, and all ancillary uses related there to, and a planned neighborhood residential R-3 zone on property located on a portion of 2599 Old Rosebud Road be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you very much. I'm pleased that you all came to a good outcome with this. Democracy in progress. KC-2010-107 LWC LLC, Mr. Money, appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a pawn shop in a highway service business B3 zone on property located 407 West New Circle Road, Council District 1. The staff has recommended approval with four conditions. Mr. Money, are you in the House? First of all, is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case? Would you tell us who you are and carry on, sir? My name is Matt Will. I'm vice president of Mr. Money USA. You have read these conditions? Have read the conditions, and we completely agree and will comply with them. And you feel like you can run this business under those four conditions? Yes. Are there any questions from board members? If not, I will hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve C-2010-107-LWC-LLC, Mr. Money. appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a pawn shop in a highway service business zone on property located at 407 West New Circle Road, based on the staff's recommendation, and subject to the four conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Motion passes. Good luck, young man. Thank you. KC2010-109, Imani Family Life Center appeals for an amendment to a previously approved condition use permit for a child care center to not require an outdoor play area for after school programs or for a child care facility that accommodates less than 120 children in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1555 Georgetown Road, Council District 2. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Anyone here representing Imani? Anyone in opposition? No one in opposition. So if you introduce yourselves, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is John Carman. I'm here with Reverend Willis Polk. We have reviewed the conditions, and we agree with the staff recommendation for approval and respectfully request approval. Any questions by the board? I'm just curious why you wouldn't want an outdoor play area. I mean, is it a matter of space or is it financial or, you know, why is there? I know that there's a gym available. I'm an outdoor person, and I just think that children need to be outside, and I'm just curious about that. The outdoor play area is required for child care. We don't have child care. We only have after school at this time. And we do have the gymnasium space, which we have two regulation sides, college basketball courts. But you do plan to have child care. Yes, and when we do, we will put the playground in. So why not have a playground now? Because after school kids don't require it. I take them to Chuck E. Cheese. Come on. Any other questions? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. That's your appeal right there. If I could just make one caution, whoever makes the motion, if it is for approval, to be sure and specify that it does not include approval for no outside play area for the child care facility. It's only with respect to the after-school program. May I hear a motion, please? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we approve C-2010-109 Imani Family Life Centers appeal for an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit for a child care center to not require an outdoor play area for after-school program or for a child care facility that accommodates less than 120 children in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1555 Georgetown Road. Based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the two conditions and with the additional note that this does not exclude an outside play area if they become a daycare. Is that about right? So that will be the motion. Do I hear a second? I second that, Mr. Chair. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, opposed. Motion. Thank you. Aye. Randall Peterson. The next case is the Vulcan Construction Material. Case 2-0-1-0-1-1-0, appeals for conditional use permit to conduct underground mining of limestone and agricultural rural and neighborhood business B-1 zones on property located 7200, 7210, and 7230 Turner Station Road, Council District 12. The staff has recommended approval subject to some conditions. Are they still outdoors? Then we'll go on to another case. And we'll go to the, well, we'll handle them in just a few minutes. Let's take case 2A2010-103, Randall Peterson's Appeals for Administrative to allow a second kitchen and a single family residential. We're going to take you shortly. We'll take you just shortly, sir. Appeals for an administrative review to allow a second kitchen in a single-family residential R1B zone on property located at 1535-1545 Lakewood Drive Council District 5. The staff originally, this was a disapproval, recommended disapproval, but since then we have had some discussion with the staff and they're going to explain why this stance has changed. In the interim time, we've gotten some more detailed floor plans from the applicant. It is a very large structure. Based on the details of how these additional facilities are proposed within this dwelling, that could be considered a kitchen. It was our interpretation after seeing those details. It was clear that they weren't full kitchens. In the past, the appeals that you all have approved for similar situations, from our best recollection, involve full kitchens for, like, a handicapped person, or I think there was one case for special religious needs. These additional facilities are clearly not full kitchens. They appear to be very accessory in nature. So we're comfortable with recommending approval. And there's some findings there that Rochelle just passed out. And before I let you all speak, I want to ask again, is there anyone in here in opposition to this particular case? All right, so if you all will introduce yourselves. I'm Randy Peterson. Do you have a copy of the – yeah. So have you read it? If you're not, you need to read it, then let us know that you understand and that you will abide by those. I was just going to mention, Mr. Chairman, sorry, that for this type of appeal, there's no conditions applied. I have a question. What does that mean? Does that mean that this is not a kitchen? It was our interpretation that viewing the details wasn't, clear it wasn't a full kitchen clearly designed for facilitating preparation of meals. That's kind of how it's described in the definition of kitchen. I think if these appeals become more common, we'll probably have to look at a better definition of kitchen so that we don't have to do this kind of interpretation thing. Jim, if this is not a kitchen, why don't we withdraw this case and let him go on without any action? I think because there's some interpretation issues. He already got a refusal from building inspection. That's what sent him here. Oh, and this is an administrative appeal. Exactly. Thank you. I misunderstood. Do you all have any questions? No. Do you have any concerns about what you're doing and what you're not supposed to be doing? No, I think we're aware. These are just auxiliary areas like for a theater area with like a microwave and a sink or something and coming in from a pool and things like that. Are there any questions, any other questions from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve A-2010-103 Randall Peterson appeals for an administrative review to allow a second kitchen. We're still calling it a second kitchen? I think that as long as your motion is couched based on adopting findings, which indicate that we believe these do not qualify as second kitchens under the zoning ordinance. Okay. To allow second kitchen facilities and a single-family residence in a single-family residential R1B zone or property located at 1535-1545 Lakewood Drive be approved per findings. hand it out to us at this meeting. Do you want me to read those findings? They're part of the record? Okay. I move to approve. Second. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Motion passes. Good luck to you. Thank you. Excuse me just a moment. Now we're coming back to that. Thank you. The next case is C2010-110 Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Appeals for a conditional use permit to conduct underground mining of limestone in an agricultural, rural, AR, and neighborhood business B1 zones on property located in 7200, 7210, and 7230 Turner Station Road, Council District 12. The staff has recommended approval, but I do understand we have some concerns from the neighborhood. And before we hear from Vulcan, we want to hear from those individuals who have concerns from the neighborhood, please. Yes, sir. I was responding to the request for postponement. We went out and visited. Did you all work it out? We've worked it out. We've got a lot of folks here, gone to a lot of trouble. We understand that they need more time. We've agreed to postpone it to the last January meeting last Friday. They've agreed to provide us a written list of concerns slash objections two weeks before that so we can review it and then try to get with them and see if we can come to some of those. Does that satisfy you in the neighborhood? Mr. Chairman, that's correct. We've agreed to identify issues that we see as problematic in exchange for them giving us a copy of their mining plan and other relevant documents and permits that they have so that we can peruse those and maybe more accurately define what our objections are. Well, I tell you, that round didn't last long out there in the hall, did it? Longer than you thought. Yeah, we actually, that book that was filed, we have that on a disc. We're just going to provide them a copy of that, which is everything that's. All right, then do I, staff, is that okay with you? Now, do I have a motion from the board to grant the postponement, please? I move we postpone for one month. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion on the floor and a second that this request be postponed until the January meeting. Am I correct? What's the date of that? January 29th. Okay. January the 29th. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck to you all. The next case, I think, which is our last one is the V2010105 Ken and Lindsay Donworth appeals for a variance to reduce the required yard along Montclair Drive from 35 feet to 20 feet in order to construct a one and a half story detached garage in a single family residential R1C zone on a property located at 1251. Eldermere Road, Council District 3. The staff has recommended this approval, and at this time we're going to let the staff take this. Now, I do understand that we didn't have anyone in here in opposition to this request. That may have changed. You might want to poll the audience again. That changed? Yeah. If you have, come forward, please. And give your name and where you live and why you're here. Hi, my name is Deborah Tatum. I'm the president of the Neighbors of Montclair Association that this property is in. I don't really want to say we are against. I simply want to clarify, we're in the middle of ND1 zoning. That was actually passed by the Planning Commission and sent to the City Council in November. Or because of three verbiage changes, we have to have a second hearing on that, which will happen on January 25th. And at that point, we should be, with our verbiage changes, right back into ND1 zoning for that neighborhood. It's not an opposition to it. It was simply clarifying a point for you. We're in the process of doing this. There are two different things that we're talking about here. Not only would the easement go from 35 feet to 20 feet, and that would be on the Montclair Drive side, but also the driveway that they're asking to put in is four feet wider than our ND1 zoning would allow. Those are the only two problems. We have some neighbors here who live near these people and are going to voice their opinions for you, and I believe they're in favor. But I simply needed to make you aware of where we were with our ND1 zoning. Thank you. Excuse me, before you sit down. Yes, sir. Are you wishing that we might postpone this until your overlay is in place, or would you like this motion, this appeal to be heard today? on the best of all, I think we go ahead and let them have their hearing today. Well, thank you. Thank you. Staff, do we have another? Yes, could I speak, please? Yes, please. I live around the corner. Who are you? I'm Marie Copeland, and I serve on the Planning Commission, and I live around the corner. Now, I don't know whether I can speak or not. You serve on the Planning Commission now? Yes. She may speak, please. Okay. We had a long, involved session. I was not present at the session, but there was a long, involved session of ND1 that was presented. And one of the guidelines is to have a 35-foot setback, which would be the same that it is on the hill of Montclair. If we break that rule here for a well-intentioned party with a beautiful plan, probably, then we are playing favorites the next time somebody, in other words, it will destroy the credibility of the ND1 that we've worked for three years to get. So in order to, for what we have passed through the Planning Commission and what's going before the Council soon, because there's a conflict with the certain interest groups who want to have vinyl, and we don't want to have vinyl, because it's not typical material of our neighborhood, we are going to throw a cloud on our whole ND1 process. It will lose credibility if we start breaking the rules and saying they can have a 15-foot setback when everybody else has got to have a 35-foot setback. So it's not that I'm against them, but I'm for the credibility of the ND1 that we worked three years for. Would you explain the ND1 zoning briefly, you know, just in a synopsis? Okay. The Montclair neighborhood, whether you're familiar with it or not, is near the university. We're adjacent to KET-TV and come up Cooper Drive, and we're that kind of little lost piece of property in there that was developed back when there was a dairy farm and the dairy barn was active. And there were cows down there mooing with plastic plates in their sides because they were studying their digestion process. Cooper Drive ended with a gate, and we were built as a contained island. And now we have all this traffic going through, And we have the pressures of the student community wanting to jump alumni and come over and live in Cooper Drive with high-density student housing similar to what's on Waller. That's one of the pressures. We're also in Phil, and we have a beautiful neighborhood of diverse people. and we did qualify for historic zoning, but we wanted more freedom than that, so we chose ND1. And it took a long time for the community of Montclair to come up with what our guidelines are. And we got it through the Planning Commission, or they did, I set out. They got it through the Planning Commission, and now it is under attack. and will be before the council. So just in terms of strategy, one of the things in the ND1 is that we contained the height of the buildings, the setbacks from the back of the yards, the setbacks from the street. In other words, we took the space and organized it so it would be somewhat the way it has always been without people jumping the boundaries. This, what they're proposing, jumps the boundary that's always been there, which is 35 feet. But let's say we say, okay, do it, then that undermines the whole credibility of what's coming before the council. And so I'm opposed, and I support the findings that you've had already, and I hope that the new neighbors understand that it is not personal because the ND1 will benefit them as much as it's going to benefit the whole neighborhood. I would like to ask the question. You used the term that it's under attack at this point in time, under attack by those who live there? Oh, no. Oh, no. No. Who's? Who's? There are the same, in my opinion, which didn't work the whole lot, but in my opinion, ND1 puts forth certain boundaries for what kind of materials you can use if you remodel your house or you fix your house up or you want to add on a room. And in my opinion, the home builders and remodeler lobbyists do not want those restrictions placed on them. Now I understand. I thought when you used it, I thought it was people who were living in there. Oh, no. The people who are living there are fine with it. And this is our first test, and we haven't even gotten it on the rule books yet. I understand that. I used to work there right next door to the KET. It used to be the Kentucky House of Athletic Association building, right there next to that corner. So I do understand where you are. MS. Mr. Chairman, sir, I'd also like to say that we are meeting with the Home Builders Association of Lexington next week with our own ND1 committee to hear any other types of arguments they may have on building materials. That takes place on Tuesday. All right. Thank you. I've got a question to have you about that. Does that mean that this particular application is going to affect your conversations with the – No, sir. Just wanted you to know when she was talking about being under attack, it was literally our last week before we came before the city council. The Home Builders Association of Lexington came in and wanted to fight several of the things, several of the regulations in the proposal, but it was already passed by the Planning Commission. One of those things was vinyl siding. So you all are working with a regulation that's going to stipulate certain types of material that have to be used if any improvement is done on the homes there in that area within this particular regulation? Yes. Okay. Along with how high your additions can be, what the height of the roof is, what the height of the garage, how far back you have to come from the back building line, what the setback is from the street, which is what this involves. And all of the neighborhood approves this? All of the neighborhood agreed to these parameters. They're different depending on the street because we have a diverse group of housing. We have some built before World War II, some built after World War II. So, but depending on the street, and this literally jumps the boundary of two streets. All right. Any other questions? Then we're going to, at this point, thank you all. I do have one more question. It seems like this is a small area, and I know it is. It's only three or four or five streets. Cute, too. And a lot of the people have lived there, maybe they're living in their parents' home or their grandparents' home. Yes. So do you think that there might be more people in opposition of this, but they're shy about coming down and causing? I think a lot of people do not even know this is a possibility. I just wondered if people would stay away. They might oppose it, but they don't want to cause disharmony in the neighborhood. No, sir. For two years we went through the ND1 process informing our neighborhoods, polling our neighborhood people, having each of our street representatives speak with each member, a member of each household, making them aware of the process, sending out a survey, getting that survey back. I think you're misunderstanding me. I meant do you think that there could be opposition to this applicant that they've decided not to come because they're next-door neighbors? We just found out about this last night. Okay. Because there's not much opposition here against this. We will just for a moment, Counsel. We'll let you have your turn. I was notified because I'm one, I'm about six houses away on Summit Drive. So there's a circle that was notified. The rest of the whole Montclair neighborhood doesn't know about it. Well, this is a sticky situation because I appreciate the work that you've done, but if there's no opposition or support for this, then it makes it a very hard decision. Well, it's... Just a few moments. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate you coming. Now, Staff, do you have anything you want to do with this case before we turn it over to you? I can give you an overview of our recommendations. You have the floor, Counsel. Can I present my case to you all now? You certainly can. Okay. Thank you very much. You might let these folks know who you are so that in case somebody's surprised to hear your name or something like that, you know. Thank you. And with me today is Lindsay. Ken has to be out of town and could not be here today. Lindsay is here with her daughter, Charlotte, who's four. They have another son, Patrick, who's a year and a half. Pat Sullivan, Lindsay's dad, is here. There you are, Pat, who's an attorney here in town. Lynn Pettigo of Pettigo Design, our designer. Chaz Height, who's a planner, who's working with us on this. And we have two neighbors who were gracious enough to take off from work today to come down and express their support of this to you. Brutus Clay, there you are, and Ben Campbell in the back. And in the packet you'll see we have letters of support from four other neighbors. And before I get into the case, I just do want to address some of these issues that were raised just a minute ago as far as the ND1 overlay. on that is concerned. The ND1 overlay is an overlay for this neighborhood, which was heard at a hearing by the Planning Commission a month or two ago. I was at that hearing, and I was representing a person who objected to it, as a matter of fact. And this has nothing to do with this case, but my client, the one at the hearing, was the one at the corner of Castle and Cooper in what they call the California House or the International House, and he was concerned because if something happened to his house, it wouldn't let his house be built the same way it is today in that location. Now, there are a number of other objectors at that hearing who objected to a number of issues. Some of them have vinyl on their houses now, and they were objected that they could not continue to use vinyl on their houses and that sort of thing. But there were a lot of some neighborhood representatives there who were very much opposed to that. Now, that was passed by the Planning Commission. Due to some of the opposition, and some of it is from the Home Builders Association Remodelers Council, who are concerned about doing remodels in this area and being able to meet their clients' needs, it was scheduled for a public hearing in January. I just wanted to give you that background because there was some discussion about the ND1. As far as this case goes, this is where we need to be heard regardless of what happens to the ND1 zone. Number one, Lynn Pedego of Pedego Design has designed this to comply with the ND1 standards, except for the one, the setback, which we're asking you for. And regardless of whether that ND1 is passed, approved with changes, or disapproved in totality, we are going to need to present this variance case to you. I strongly disagree with the statement that the ND1 will lose credibility because of your hearing this case. In fact, I think it will add to the credibility because Lynn has designed, in addition, without final, meeting all height requirements and meeting all the other requirements of the ND1 zone. And there was a mention that we might have to narrow a driveway, and if we need to narrow a driveway, we will to comply with whatever the ND zone requirements are. But I want to emphasize, ND1 zoning has not been passed. It is not a law. It is not an ordinance. Of course, the law in Kentucky says that agencies have to consider the case they have before them on the law that exists on the day they're hearing it, not on some speculative change in the law. But we're not concerned because regardless of what happens to ND1, we need you to request you to hear this variance request. And we think it's very justified because setbacks in this neighborhood are not uniform. They're very variable, as I'm going to say. There are unique circumstances with each lot, and we think we qualify for the circumstances which will grant a zone change, excuse me, grant a variance for this property. I do want to emphasize, too, there was discussion about not wanting the neighborhood to turn into a student community, and this is not the case here. The community you see, half of it is sitting in front of you. It'll be a student community when Charlotte gets to be five years old and goes to kindergarten. But this is not going to be turned into University of Kentucky Housing. There's a lot of concern about that house next to KET. Apparently somebody turned it into what is suspected to be student housing. And I know that was part of the impetus behind ND1 zoning. And that is absolutely not the case for this house. This is for the family that has purchased it. Lindsay and Ken have tried to purchase this house for over a year. The house has actually been vacant for three years, and I know a number of the neighbors are very pleased and very happy to see that it will be occupied and will be fixed up. There's some deferred maintenance issues on this house, and Lindsay and Ken don't live in this house yet, but they have been very active in talking to their neighbors around them, getting their input, and engaging a designer who is sensitive to those issues. So I just wanted to address those issues at the beginning. We fully understand the reason behind the ND1 zone, and we're not disagreeing with that, but we need to ask you for this variance. What we're asking you today for is a variance on the side street side yard of this property. The ordinance says the setback is 30 feet. We have to meet the same setback on side street side yards as on front yards. There's a platted setback of 35. We would like to place a detached garage at a 20-foot setback along this property. And so we're asking for a variance from the platted line of 35 to the requested setback of 20 feet, a variance of a total of 15 feet on this property. I want to emphasize to you also that the setback is measured from the property line, not the street line. And that's important here because in this area, and I'll show you some pictures in a little bit, the utility strip is very wide. The area between the edge of the street and the sidewalk, which is right-of-way, is 12 feet wide. We have a 3-foot sidewalk, so before you get to zero, we have a 15-foot setback from the roadway in this area. So we're going to have a 15-feet setback from the roadway. Then we're going to start counting our setback of 20 feet, which will leave our requested detached garage a total of 35 feet from the edge of the pavement of Montclair Drive. We will have setback 20 feet from the property line. But I want to make sure you all knew out there that there's a real wide utility strip of 12 feet, which also adds to the green space, but we can't count that technically as part of our setback. As I mentioned, Ken and Lynn hired Lynn Pedego with Pedego Design to design this. Proposed, it's an addition to their house and a detached garage. And one reason they hired Lynn is because they wanted somebody who was sensitive to the neighborhood and would meet their family concerns as well. Ken and Lindsay had three priorities in doing this. Number one, they wanted to be sensitive to the neighborhood design. Number two, they wanted to have an outdoor supervised play area for their two children here. And number three, they wanted to have a functional garage. The garage on the property was built when the house was built. It's almost too narrow to get today's cars in. You cannot put anything else in the garage. It's difficult to get out of your car once you get in the garage. So they need a functional garage. was the garage, the play area, and having something that works in this neighborhood. They hired Lynn because Lynn Pettico is experienced in doing remodels in this neighborhood. She has done a number of them. She's done many in Chevy Chase. As a matter of fact, she did the design of the remodel on the house directly behind us. On Indian Mound Road, I think she's worked on 12 houses alone on Indian Mound Road on doing additions or remodels. She's done the Nick Ryan's Saloon on Jefferson Street, which is a new one. If you haven't seen that, you ought to go by and see it, and Jefferson Street looks great. And she has worked on John Calipari's house. I guess we can mention that as long as they're winning ballgames. But she's come up with a design which is sensitive to, and in keeping with, the neighborhood character on this. And we have some issues we have to deal with on this lot. You have up there the first page of my handout. I think that's the first page. It's the plaid of this property. But if you could go to the second page, I want to show you what we're dealing with. If you could go to the second page of my handout there. Exhibit B. We are lot 6. Here we are. Oops, there we go. Oops, we just tilted it on me. There we are. Okay. We are lot six. This is the Van Meter Road. Back in 1930 when this was platted, this was called Van Meter Road. It's Montclair today. This is Montclair Road. Here is Eldermere Road coming down here. We're at the corner. This is lot six. But you can see the size of these lots down here. They had setbacks on both roads here. Behind us, the lots were smaller on Summit Drive down here. And if you could go back to Exhibit A, back in 1990, those two lots next to each other, Lot 5 and 6, were subdivided into three lots. You can bring it, there you go. Or bring it down a little bit. There we go. Here again is Montclair, obviously renamed from Van Meter Road. Here's Eldemere Road. Here is Ken and Lindsay's lot, Lot 6. Here is the lot which was next door to them. And you can see what they did was they took a third of Lot 6 and a third of Lot 5 and added them together, and they came up with a new lot here. But what the impact was, you can see here is the old lot line bisecting the new lot. But the impact that had was it essentially took away half of the usable area outside the setback lines, even though it only took about a third of the lot. As far as areas within the setback lines, it took about a half of those. And at the same time, for this lot here, they gave a driveway. they took a 15-foot swath off the back of this lot. So this lot here actually has a driveway which goes out to Montclair between the driveway for this house and the driveway for the next house behind there. So we have a situation where we've got three driveways coming out in a row. And if you've been out there, which you all probably have, you probably saw this single-lane driveway coming out between, there was a white picket fence on one side and a stockade-type fence on the other coming out to Montclair Road. And that's the driveway. That's how this was created 20 years ago when they created this lot. So our lot had a third of it and then half the buildable area taken off on the north side here. And then on the west side it had the driveway taken off, which creates an issue now having a driveway going down the backside of your house. So it has changed the configuration of the property. Over the years in this neighborhood, there have been a number of other plots that have modified building setback lines. If there's one thing consistent in this neighborhood, it's its inconsistency. This neighborhood, and this came out at the hearing on ND1, has a totally variety of houses, of styles of houses, ranch styles, Cape Cod, two stories, three stories, one story. It has different heights. It has different setbacks. I think two-thirds of the houses have detached garages. A third of the houses have attached garages. There's another group that doesn't have garages. It has different setbacks. So over the years, it has changed through here. If you go to Exhibit C, I'm just going to show you some of the plats which have changed setback lines through the years on this property. Exhibit C shows the property at Castle and Cooper. And back in 1983, they amended the plat to reduce the building lines on that one. Going to the next one, Exhibit D, this is property at Castle at the corner of Montclair. As you can see on this one, this was back in 1979. There was a 20-foot building line there along Castle. and the next exhibit is Exhibit E, which is at Scoville Road and Cooper. You can see they've reduced along Scoville to 23-foot setback on that plant. And Exhibit F is one at actually Caddy Corner from us. This is back in 1979, which shows a 20-foot setback along Eldermere, 20 feet along Eldermere Road. And then the next one is another of the original plats for the Montclair subdivision. This is from 1940. And I just put this up here to show that even when they originally platted this, there were a number of different treatments of corner lots. And most of these plats I showed you were corner lots, and corner lots have traditionally been treated differently in Montclair subdivision. You can see on this one at the corner of Castle, and again they called it Van Meter. It's Montclair now. So these side yard lines, side street side yards on Castle are 15 feet under the plat, which was approved then. And there's another instance off the chart up there where they reduced it down as well on a corner lot. But, again, I put these up to show you that the treatment of corner lots, especially, in Montclair subdivision has allowed variances in the setbacks and building lines, and that's part of the character of the neighborhood which we have. As I said, one of the things that has been consistent in here is the variation in the neighborhood. And that's part of what makes the neighborhood so desirable and appealing is the style, the mixture of the style of houses in here. If we could go to some of the pictures, I want to show you our property. If you could show picture A, photograph A. It's tough to take photographs when there's snow on the ground due to the lighting conditions. But this is the front of the house from Eldemir. You can see there it's a two-and-a-half story on the side. There's a window up on the third story on that. If you've been out there, you know, you can see all the way through the house because it's vacant. There's nobody there. There's been nobody there for three years on this property. Next picture item B is the backyard of the property. This is right next to us. This is the house which is next to us on Eldemere, which was carved out of those two lots. This is the one that has the driveway going around and then coming down the side. The garage, if we don't get the setback, will be right in this area. It's hard to see the back of the house there, but we'll be right in this middle area here, taking up the middle of the backyard on this. The next picture, photograph C, this is a photograph on Montclair. This is from our property looking at Montclair about where our driveway is going to be coming out. I brought it to show you that we don't have a house directly looking at it, but we do. There's a house right here. And we do have a letter of support from that individual who is the closest one to this garage, who will be looking at this garage. We have a letter of support, which I'll go over in a minute with you. The next one, item. This is a side view of our house. And again, we're standing on Eldemir, looking down the side of this. We took this so you could notice this. This is the garage of the house behind us, which faces on Montclair. The house faces the street behind us. And you can, even though there's a curve in the roadway, which that meets setback requirements, but it is located in front of the plane of the house on Montclair behind us. The next photograph is the house behind us on Montclair. This is the garage I just showed you here, two-car garage facing Montclair. This is a remodel. We think it was done very tastefully. The stone blends in. It has architectural interest at different plains, different dormers and roof lines. That was done by Lynn Pettigo, who designed this one and is designing the house for Ken and Lindsay. But we wanted to show you this. This is what we showed you in that picture before. If you could go to the next one. this is the side of our house as it exists today. And part of the issue with this architecturally is that this is a very mass, a big mass facing Montclair. And as you can see, it's all at the same plane. And when you have everything at the same plane, it loses architectural distinctiveness. We need to do something at a different plane for the garage on this property so it is not an even more massive plane at the same setback line. Whether we're attached or detached, it's not a good idea to have the garage at the same plane as this very large two-and-a-half-story plane, which is now at the same location, except for maybe an inch or two for this chimney which is there. So that's what we're dealing with. And we have a couple of other photographs. Again, if you take the next one, this is looking up Montclair. Again, we've gone past the house behind us. This is the house behind us at the corner. Our house is up here in the background. And as you're looking up Montclair, you can see the curve in the roadway I was telling you about. Where will our garage be? This is the house which was recently remodeled behind us with the two-car garage onto Montclair. Here is the white picket fence which goes around us, which is at a setback of about one or two feet. Next behind that, we have a driveway coming out from the house behind us on Eldemir. Driveway, driveway, driveway. Our garage will be located here, set back from the fence here, right in this area, at the same scale and height as is this garage. It will be located right in there and coming on up. And I think you can see, coming up Montclair, with the curve the way it is, with this garage, with the fence, with the driveway from the other house, three driveways in a row, So we're going to be very appropriate sitting right there on Montclair. And we have a couple other pictures. Lynn has designed this so that our garage doors do not face Montclair. You enter at a 90-degree angle. Here are some pictures in the neighborhood of houses that do face the roadway, not on this road, but on others in this neighborhood. That's one. Here's another one facing the roadway. And finally, the last one is a newer design, probably remodeled, where they come in at a 90-degree angle. You come in there, and the nice thing about having them at a 90-degree angle, it's safer because you don't have to back out on the street. You get to come in forwards. And traffic engineering people have always told me it's better to come in forwards onto a street than it is to back out on a street. And that's what Lynn has designed. It's better aesthetically and it's better safety angle to have the doors facing at a 90-degree angle to the street rather than entering directly. So that's where we are in photographs. And I'll finish up in a minute. I just need to have a couple of other things I need to tell you about. that the problem with the setback is I've got one other exhibit here. Sorry to give you so many exhibits, just trying to get a feel of where we're at on this property here. We've shown where we're proposing the garage to be and where we would put it if it were to meet the entire setback. And if you could pull back a little bit, it's hard to see what I'm doing. If you don't pull it back a little bit, keep going there if you would so we can show the street on here. Okay. There we go. Here is, again, here is Montclair. Eldemir is down below us here. This is right behind us is the driveway coming from the house next door over here. What we've shown in the pink outline is where we would like to locate this garage. You come in off of Montclair. You get to come in the garage. When you're getting out, you back out and you come back facing forward onto Montclair. Now, if we were to meet the setback, again, we're putting the same plane on the rest of the house, which is not a good idea, but if we met that, it would be here. If we pushed it further back, it would be back this way. But this illustrates the problem we have. If we put the garage right here where it's outlined in blue, we don't have any yard left over. There's only a 29-foot gap over there for a yard. There's a very limited play area for the kids if we put the garage over here. That's why we're wanting to locate it there. And this dimension now from here to here is 20 feet. Now the dimension from here to here is 35. That's why the 35 is there, 20 is right there. But you can see here what it does to the use of the backyard. If we were to pull it up and attach it, Again, we have the same problem because that mass just moves up and blocks a good deal of the backyard, and it makes it harder to supervise children. You want to be able to see your children when they're out in the yard, especially at this age. They tend to wander around. So it's very important here. Now, if we were to, this also minimizes the amount of paving here. If we move it back here, we have to pave more in order to get back here, which reduces the backyard usability even more. If we put a straight driveway out from this point, we'd be paving a great deal of the lawn here. And plus, then we'd have three driveways directly in a row. We've got a space of only about 15 feet between here and this driveway, 10 or 15 feet. So we'd have driveway here, driveway here, driveway here, again, which is not the optimal situation for safety or just design having those three driveways in a row. So Lynn had solved this issue by moving this garage closer to the street, which we think is a good solution because we think it fits in with not only the property behind us but the variation in lot setbacks lined on corner lots throughout this subdivision. We think it will not be a blocking and aesthetic issue at any place in this area, and we have support from a lot of the neighbors here. And it will also help us to screen the driveway behind us. But I want to show you in the handout we have four letters of support. We've got two neighbors here who want to testify in favor of it. And as you all know, it's a lot easier to get somebody to come down to object to something than it is to get somebody to come down and support something. We have four letters of support. I'll just, on Exhibit H, is from Anna Marie Shannon, who is right next door to us on Aldamere Drive. And she is actually the one who, she didn't subdivide the house. She bought the house, which has been subdivided off. She drives the driveway behind us. But she's looked over this carefully. I just want to read a couple parts to you. She said she would not be able to be attending today. The original house, this is Ken and Lindsay's house, is very tall, two and a half stories. It seems to me that the one and a half story garage would add a much needed transition to the rear of the lot. The side yard of 20 feet instead of 35 would add a nice variation to the view down Mount Clare, repeating the variance on the side of 1566 Tate's Creek Road. That's the one at Tate's Creek Road and Mount Clare at the corner. As you come in, they added a sunroof to it. She said it would repeat that variance. Coming up the hill on Montclair toward Tate's Creek, the garage would blend the two-and-a-half-story house into human scale. Since my driveway was cut off the back of this property, done so before I bought the property, they do indeed need this space for a backyard. It's my assumption that all other codes are being met as to the placement of the garage to my driveway and my property line on the northeast side. I am delighted that someone is going to update and reside on the property that has been empty and neglected for three years. One of the issues I have had for the 16 years since I've owned my property is that the two fences on either side of my driveway onto Montclair obstruct vision of the sidewalk and traffic on Montclair, especially with a slight hill. The garage 20 feet back from the property line will be much better than the six-foot solid fences and overgrown brush two feet from the sidewalk on either side of my driveway that I have had in the past. In summary, I have no objection to the grant of the variance. The next one on Exhibit I is from Joe Putnam. Now, he is at 748 Montclair. You're not going to read these to us, are you? Well, they're outstanding letters. I'd like to read parts of them to you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we can read the letters ourselves. The letters are here for us to read. I want to hear from some of the neighbors here. If you don't mind, please. Well, I'll just note the letters in the record. Mr. Putnam is the one on Exhibit I. He's the one directly across from this driveway. He's going to be looking at it every day. He's the one who's got the maintenance. This is no disrespect to you. I just don't think we need to read all of them. Exhibit J is Molly Jamison. She's just up the street on Eldamere. She feels this is completely appropriate and heard words, and we'd be a nice addition. The last one is from William S. Chapman. He owns property and lives there at 1231 Eldemir, who is four doors up from this. And again, he feels this will be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Chairman, I've got a minute to sum up, but I'll hold that to laugh. The other witnesses have come up here. I have two people here, neighbors in support, and we'd like to have Lynn Pettigo talk to you, too, who's the designer. Maybe I'll get the neighbors here who are in support. Mr. Clay, if you'd like to come up here. Thank you, Mr. Councilman. Please come up and give your name, please, and tell us where you live, please. My name's Brutus Clay. I live at 1245 Eldermere. It's just two houses down the street from the Dunwars. and the reason I'm here is in support of this proposed variance. To me, they're making a significant investment in the House and subsequently in our neighborhood. The plans, I've reviewed their plans very closely, and they're in keeping and actually improving the values of the surrounding homes. And as far as the variance on the street, it strikes me that really it's a question of two things. How important is this setback or is it for the children? Because having room for the children to play outside, which Mrs. Meyer pointed out, is probably important. I have young children, and I know that they love our backyard, playing in the backyard, and it's a secure environment. What they're proposing is similar to what we did with our yard, and I can't express my support, how adamant I am that this should be passed. And if it isn't, I think it's really a misjustice on zoning and what's happening in our communities where we're turning our back on families for some supposable war out there. So I just wanted to express my support of it, taking the time out of my schedule to be here. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next neighbor is Mr. Ben Campbell. And as you know, Ben is a leading residential appraiser here in town about property values and happens to live in this area. I'm Ben Campbell. I live at 1226 Eldemere. It's down about four doors and across the street. Over the years, I have appraised many properties in this neighborhood, including the subject property. I have reviewed the plans. I've seen the dry, the variance, and I think it should be approved. In the past, they had a wooden fence with overgrown landscaping that I thought created an additional barrier. I think with what they have proposed, it's nothing but a positive, and I highly recommend it. Thank you. Lynn Pettigo is here, our designer, who just wanted to discuss a little bit. Lindsay doesn't want to talk unless she has to. She'd be happy to answer any questions she may have here. Or her dad, the attorney, who would probably be very happy to discuss this with you at length as well. But Lynn, if you want to. He's probably like I am. You'll warn us enough. Hello, my name is Lynn Pettigo. I live at 559 North Broadway, and I drew the plans for the Dunworths. And in the process of doing these plans, there was great thought put into trying to make it a usable floor plan for today's living and for a family of four and potential growth. And also taking into account that the use of a garage in today's lifestyle is completely different from the 30s and when this property was developed. And in my defense of wanting to propose to move the garage closer to the street to create a more playful background, backyard area, Yeah. When these houses were built in the early 1900s, we didn't have to worry about traffic. We didn't have to worry about security. Those streets were not busy streets then. They are basically highways now. People drive so fast down through Montclair and Eldemare, and there's a lot of traffic. You don't have children unsupervised in front yards or side yards. That does not occur anymore. And in the thought process of designing this, we decided that you would enter a driveway, and it would be gated, and there would be a fence that would sit back closer to the garage, plenty of feet from the street, and then secure the rear yard. We also took into consideration the overlay potential in designing this, so that we clearly met everything that was required with the exception of the side yard. I take great pride in what I do. I've been doing it for 23 years and hope to keep doing it for another 23. But I just wanted to speak and reiterate the importance of securing the rear yard and making it a livable environment for today's lifestyle and living and also upgrading the neighborhood. and I don't think that there's too many people that are objective to this. We've sent the letters out in response to our application to the surrounding perimeter of the amount of feet that we had to send the letters to. So that would explain why probably the rest of the Eldemere neighborhood did not get any notification of what our plans were. Do you have any questions for me? I don't. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. I'll just sum up, and again, Ken and Lindsay don't even live here in this neighborhood yet, but I think it's rare that you all have an applicant before you who has done this much homework and the type of things you and we as a government encourage people to do, and that's talk to your neighbors and see what their concern was. They have gone to them and showed them the plans. They have engaged Lynn Pettigo, who has designed other additions in this neighborhood and knows how to make something blend in with the neighborhood. And they want something that will work for their family, yes, but they want something that works for the neighborhood as well. And with the variations, as I've shown you on the setbacks and that sort of thing, and the design that we have, a 90-degree angle, no garage doors facing the street, we feel that we have a plan that meets the requirements for a variance. and more important is in keeping and will enhance, as the witnesses have said, and Mr. Campbell is an appraiser, not only enhance but improve the neighborhood that we have here. What they've heard overwhelmingly is that the neighbors are very happy to have them moving in and very happy to have them making these changes to the property. We hope you'll vote in favor of this, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all have. Mr. Murphy, I think your point that this would be, this case should be heard without regard to the ND1 action before the council because whether it's passed or whether it's not, this is in under the wire. And for that reason, I think it wouldn't be precedent setting either and that the ND1 overlay would be just as strong because this couldn't be used as an example since it wasn't in effect. That's right. And given that there's no opposition, really, from the neighborhood, Rochelle looked over your findings of facts and made a few changes. We haven't had a call for a motion yet, but I thought if we do and we put these findings on the board, you might want to see whether they would be agreeable to you. And then there's a condition here that it sounded like you would accept that the driveway be reduced in its width by four feet. We will. We will agree with that, yes. Well, I don't know if we're ready for a motion, but I wanted to be sure that those changes in the findings of fact and that one condition would satisfy you and your client. Yes, those changes would be agreeable, yes. Are there any other staff? Do you have any comments? I could talk a lot about this, but I think I'll just focus on what I think the biggest concern is, is I would disagree with Mr. Griggs that it doesn't set a precedent. I think it does. I think that's what Ms. Copeland's biggest concern was, that this might change the standard. This is very weak in the area of special circumstances. Even with all the lot subdivisions, it's a very large lot, 94 feet wide and 185 feet deep. It would be very hard for this board to disapprove a similar request. Similar in terms of just what they're asking for in terms of setback, And I can show an aerial photo that shows the two adjoining corner lots, just not to argue one way or another, just so you understand what you might be facing in the future in terms of an application. Well, I have sit here now for going on this three years and much longer before that, and it has been the opinion of this board of adjustments, not only this one but several others that I've served on, that we do not treat one case the same, any case is the same. We take them and we hear them, and if they are worthy and they don't break regulations relative to what these people are trying to do, then we hear those cases and we take offense to them. But I've listened to this, and that's why I asked the questions up here to the two ladies that were up here. if this was relative to developing and also relative to construction, home construction. And in essence, they told me yes, that they did not want different materials used in redeveloping or reconstructing homes. And I can understand that. But when I look at this situation, and I cannot find any reason why that the variance would not have been recommended for approval, other than what you've just told me about the presidents. And I don't worry about presidents from the standpoint of what we do as a board, because I've been told before, we respond to case by case by case by case. and if it happens to fall into where we agree with one where we may say, well, we've set a precedence, then that's the way it falls. I just don't, and I'm not jumping on the staff or anything of that nature. All I'm saying is that we have an awful tough job to do to sit here to listen to both sides as to why. If they were coming in here telling me they wanted to put tile on the outside of the house and no one else has it in the neighborhood, they'd hear a no from me right quick. They'd hear a no from me. But to put a garage and to access a driveway and then to relinquish the four feet, I see no reason why this should not be approved. I just don't see it. I mean, I don't see where it's tampering with anything the neighborhood wants to do relative to zoning or anything else of that nature. I don't see that. And I can't make a motion because of where I'm sitting, but I have no opposition to this. And it's no disrespect to you all. I think what you're doing for the neighborhood is absolutely good. but in this particular case relative to what they're trying to do, and maybe they'll do it under the regulations, the new regulations that are coming about. Whether they do or whether they don't, that's up to you all in the neighborhood. But I think that what they're trying to do is to upgrade this house, and I think the house needs to be upgraded, and I would fully support this. Any other comments? Yes, ma'am? Mr. Chair, just as a little bit of a rebuttal, I want to make sure you know it's Mr. Murphy, correct? He characterized our ND1 zoning as having a lot of opposition. There were five people that came to oppose. There were eight people here for. Eighty percent of the respondents of our neighborhood agreed to the ND1 zoning as we have it going forward. I just don't want it to be classified as having a lot of objection. We've taken a lot of input. We took a lot of time getting this together. Had the Home Builders Association of Lexington and the remodelers come to us a little bit earlier, this would have been a done deal. That makes no bearing on your decision today. But I want you to know this was not a heavily opposed program to go into ND1 zoning. It was our neighborhood's vote to go to ND1 zoning. And I do appreciate that. Thank you. We have a question. I'm looking at the supplemental proposed findings up on the board that have been modified. What's the reason for reducing driveway from 14 to 10 feet? I put that in there because the ND1 standards would require that, and they acted like they would not have a problem with it. So it just makes it more conforming with the way the neighborhood is hoping to direct itself. But that was the only reason for it. Yes, ma'am. Sir, could I say something? Could we just put something like another condition, Rochelle, maybe you can help us with this, where there is a recognition that this design is in accordance with ND1's proposals, with the proposed guidelines of ND1, that it is in accordance with that, except for this variance. That would give credibility to ND1. I don't have a problem with that. Do you have a problem with it? You might ask the client if she would. because that's all we need. We just need to not have it. You're proposing that as a finding, correct? As a finding. Factual finding. As long as it's not a condition, I mean, I don't want to set a situation where if someone has proposed an ordinance that isn't in place yet and we have no way of knowing if it will go in place yet, I don't want to start using that as a condition. But they have presented evidence that they designed this in accordance with those proposals. So as long as that's a finding of fact, I think that's fine. That's what I'm asking for. That's all we need. Is that all right with you, Dick? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions on the board? Not out of here. Motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move to, with respect to application V-2010-105, Ken and Lindsay Dunworth's appeal for a variance to reduce the required yard along Montclair Drive from 35 feet to 20 feet in order to construct a one-and-a-half story detached garage in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1251 Eldemill Road. approved with an acknowledgement that the facts show that the variance is designed in accordance with the guidelines of ND1. Is that right? Am I saying that correctly? The proposed guidelines now under consideration. Okay. With the proposed guidelines that are shown up there on the screen and they're under consideration. Do I hear a second? I second that, Mr. Chair. All in favor signify the saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. I'm thankful we adjourn. We've got a couple of things on the agenda, and I'll turn this over to Mr. Briggs. I'm turning this portion of this meeting over to you, yes. One of the items on the agenda is to elect new office holders for the coming year. And I'm not sure, since I might end up being nominated for secretary, whether I ought to make these, or perhaps we'll make them individually. Let's nominate Lewis to be chair for the next year. I need a motion for that. So moved. I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. In Kathy's absence, why don't we nominate her for vice chair? I need a motion. Absolutely. I'll make that motion. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And then we'll need a secretary. Anybody have a suggestion? I'd like to move that we accept Mr. Griggs as our secretary. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. I think I'll hand the gavel back over to Lewis then. Staff, do you have anything you want to? There was an item for discussion on here under the board items, possible bylaw revision. That was something initiated by Ms. Moore, so we might want to delay that until the next hearing so she can have a chance to speak up. I think that's a good idea. So moved. Motion on the floor. Second? Second. All in favor of signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Anything else, staff? Just a reminder about the APA training. That will be it for me. It's on the agenda. So our next meeting is January 29th? That's correct. And to all of you in here, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. And we'll see you next month. Board meetings adjourned. Thank you. Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride in a one-horse open sleigh Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride in a one-horse open sleigh Dashing through the snow in a one-horse open sleigh O'er the fields we go, laughing all the way. Bells on bobtails, making spirits bright. What fun it is to ride and sing a sleighing song tonight. Jingle bells to jingle bells, jingle all the way. Oh what fun it is to ride in a warm horse open sleigh. Jingle bells, ch-ch-ch-chingle bells.