# Board of Adjustment Meeting - Part 2 - February 11, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 11, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1936 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1936?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-02-11 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 2,704 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on February 11, 2011, at 1:02 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Louis Stout presiding. The board addressed six agenda items during the meeting, including the continuation of a conditional use appeal, internal governance matters, and administrative items. The board took one motion and vote during the session and heard seven public comments. The meeting resulted in one substantive decision: the denial of the Conditional Use Appeal C-2010-110 for Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. The remaining agenda items—Election of Officers, Delegation of Secretarial Duties, Possible By-Law Revision, Staff Items, and Next Meeting Date—were handled as informational matters. ## Attendance **Present:** Louis Stout, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, Jan Meyer, Noel White, Thomas Glover, Jim Hume, Chuck Saylor, Jim Gallimore, Capt. Charles Bowen, Rochelle Boland, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Jim Marx, and Wanda Howard. **Absent:** Barry Stumbo. ## Votes and Decisions **C-2010-110: Conditional Use Permit for Underground Limestone Mining** A motion regarding a conditional use permit for underground mining of limestone at 7200, 7210, and 7230 Turner Station Road was brought to a vote. [timestamp: 0:19:50] The motion, made by Thomas Glover, failed by voice vote. The following members voted in favor of the motion: - Louis Stout - James Griggs - Kathryn Moore - Jan Meyer - Noel White - Thomas Glover The following member voted against the motion: - Thomas Glover ## Public Comment Seven speakers addressed the meeting with concerns about Vulcan's mining operations and proposed expansion. **Legal and Compliance Issues** Don Todd [0:04:03] argued that Vulcan has failed to comply with the Mining & Quarrying Ordinance since its adoption in 1991, citing missing required documents and asserting that the company should not be permitted to expand without a conditional use permit despite its non-conforming use status. William Brown [0:08:20] similarly contended that Vulcan violated buffer zone requirements, failed to submit required plans, and maintains an inadequate reclamation bond. He stated the operation has not followed the ordinance since its inception. **Environmental and Geological Concerns** Gloria Martin [0:05:37] testified that Vulcan has violated the Mining & Quarrying Ordinance for 20 years, ignored buffer requirements, and caused environmental damage including sinkholes and water impoundment issues. She urged denial of the application. John W. (Bill) McCord, Jr. [0:12:07] presented evidence from USGS and Kentucky Geological Survey reports linking mining to sinkhole formation, characterizing the area as environmentally sensitive and unsuitable for expansion. **Impact on Nearby Properties and Infrastructure** Dr. Andy Roberts [0:10:33] expressed concern that mine expansion would harm his 75-acre horse farm, disrupt water systems, and prove incompatible with agricultural use, despite acknowledging the economic argument for local rock supply. Jim Lerton [0:11:03] shared personal experience of wall failure and house settling caused by decades of blasting. He emphasized that the mine violated the ordinance by failing to identify nearby homes. Dr. Charles Martin [0:13:10] highlighted damage to roads from heavy trucks and emphasized regulatory requirements for safe truck operations, questioning Vulcan's compliance with transportation and safety standards. ## Contested Items **Approval of Vulcan's Conditional Use Permit** The primary contested item before the Board was Vulcan's application for a conditional use permit. The application faced unanimous opposition from the community, with multiple residents presenting detailed testimony during the meeting. Residents raised three main categories of concerns: - Structural damage resulting from the proposed operations - Environmental degradation impacts - Noncompliance with the Mining & Quarrying Ordinance The neighborhood opposition was comprehensive and coordinated, with multiple community members providing specific testimony on these issues. Despite Vulcan's application, the Board ultimately denied the request, reflecting the strength and unanimity of the community's position against the permit approval. ## Continuation of Conditional Use Appeal: C-2010-110 - Vulcan Construction Materials, LP [timestamp: 00:04:03] The Board continued a public hearing on Vulcan Construction Materials, LP's appeal for a conditional use permit to conduct underground mining operations in the A-R and B-1 zones. **Staff Recommendation and Presentation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions. **Objectors' Testimony** Multiple speakers presented testimony opposing the permit, raising significant concerns: - **Environmental harm** from the proposed mining operations - **Noncompliance** with the Mining & Quarrying Ordinance - **Structural damage** risks to nearby properties and infrastructure - **Long-term risks to groundwater** quality and availability - **Impacts on nearby properties** from mining activities Key speakers presenting objections included Don Todd, Gloria Martin, William Brown, Dr. Andy Roberts, Jim Lerton, John W. (Bill) McCord, Jr., and Dr. Charles Martin. **Outcome** The Board denied the conditional use permit appeal for Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. ## Election of Officers The Board proceeded with the election of officers as required by its bylaws. The minutes do not contain specific details regarding nominations made, voting procedures, or the results of the election. No transcript timestamp is available for this agenda item. ## Delegation of Secretarial Duties The Chair requested action on delegating secretarial duties during this agenda item. Historically, these duties have been assigned to the Planning Manager or other staff members. No decision or vote was recorded on this matter. The item was treated as informational in nature, with no formal outcome documented. ## Possible By-Law Revision The Board discussed the possibility of revising bylaws to include procedural guidelines such as speaker time limits. No formal action was taken on this matter. ## Staff Items No specific staff items were presented or discussed during this portion of the meeting. ## Next Meeting Date The Chair announced that the next meeting would be held on February 25, 2011. --- ## Decisions - **C-2010-110** — failed: Conditional use permit for underground mining of limestone at 7200, 7210, and 7230 Turner Station Road --- ## Full transcript Thank you. I hear you. What did Happy Chandler say? It feels like a mosquito flying over the... I don't know where to begin. We've got two waiting. We're waiting on two. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Todd. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I first of all want to, on behalf of my clients, extend our appreciation to you for giving us so much time. But this is a case, as you well know now, that has a long and storied history. These people have been dealing with this issue for years and years and years. And no matter what Richard says to you from the beginning, this is a pretty simple case. They're asking for an expansion. They're asking to move into a new piece of property that they've never had the rights to mine or to quarry in the past. They're asking to go into what is an agricultural area. Since the very first zoning ordinance was passed in this city back in the, I guess, early 50s, this has been an agricultural zone. Now, prior to that time, there was no zone. In fact, this mine may have existed to help construct the interstate at some point prior to that application. But once that zoning ordinance overlay, agricultural zone, took place, they at that point in time were a non-conforming use. And it's our position that when they sold this property, as they have several times in their chain of title, that they're required to come in and ask for that conditional use permit. Now, as much as Richard wanted to whistle past the alleyway and say that somehow, by implication that this mining ordinance didn't apply to him, that's ridiculous. That's absurd. They participated in the development of this mining ordinance. their experts, along with all the neighbors, sat down and over, as Gloria described for you, two years, they came up with this ordinance. And they've yet to comply with it. They've never complied with it since the day it was passed. I think it's ludicrous for him to stand in front of you and say, you know, we're in compliance, we're a valid operation, and yet none of the documents that we requested by open records request, were given to us. And I'm not going to go through every one of them, but they're in that table there that was given to you when Mary Hanna spoke. And we asked for their maps. We asked for their approval for water impoundment. We asked for transportation plans. We asked for the vicinity map that identified all the historical areas, the natural areas, the areas of cultural significance. None of that. It's a joke. and now they're back here saying to you, well, you know, we're okay here. We want to move next door because, you know, we need to mine rock. And I got tickled, and the only people that would come up and speak were lawyers for them. And one of them had the audacity to say, well, we need this rock. You know, we're in a position where, you know, we're moving forward. And we've already, I guess they weren't here when we initially presented that aspect of the case to you, but we gave you in that handout a 20-mile or 25-mile radius showing you all the quarries that are available. There are six or seven quarries within, was it 15 miles or 20 miles? 15 miles. It's ridiculous. This quarry has been there too long. They've encroached upon their neighbors, and that's what started all this. You know, what started all this concern and input and coming together and developing was the fact that they were poaching off their neighbors. They took rock off of poor Mary Warden. They took rock off the state right away. And they even took rock off of poor Mr. the grocery store owner out there, Turner. and it wasn't until they were caught that they came forward and, of course, they paid for what they had taken. And as a result of all that, we came together as a community and said, okay, you know, this thing is out of hand and we're going to have to adopt this ordinance and put all these checks into play so that everybody plays on the same level playing field as Gloria said. And that still hasn't happened. They still don't comply. I was tickled when they came forward and said that, you know, we're a relatively small mining operation. I do think they only have six or seven people out there. And their blasting hasn't caused any difficulties or problems, and yet every one of the neighbors who live nearby have had problems. And these people are not going to come down here and lie to you. These people don't have it in. The only time people get engaged in a circumstance like this is when they've been wronged, and they've been wronged over a period of time. And so our position is, quite frankly, this is a group that wants to expand its use in an environmentally sensitive area that has been governed for, I guess, 20 years now by an ordinance, and they won't comply with it. It's in an area that we've spent literally millions of dollars in the last 20 years to develop a comprehensive plan, to develop a land use management plan, Rural Land Management Plan. That's it, Don. I got one more minute here. Don, that's it. That's it, Don. Okay. Well, all right. You gave Richard 20 minutes in closing argument and I get four, huh? Well, I just hope that you'll remember. Really, we didn't have to give you that. Really, we didn't have to give you that. I just hope you give us equity. Thank you. I'll give it back. I'm going to take a minute. Okay. We have heard both sides as I've spoken before we are just now rest here in the judgment and decision of this board and are there any comments by the board? I would like to say that I have very grave concerns about the expansion of this operation these people who live out there have put up with long 50 years plus of blasting that we don't really know what the effects of it are I don't know I don't know if there's anybody out there who could confirm one way or the other what those effects are for these people. So to me that's a consideration. We've heard that they are in compliance but we also have heard that we are in a topography, in a geology area that is sensitive. And so what are the effects of the blasting? What is that? When you take 50 years of it on a regular basis, what does happen out there? And then you have the issues of the water and the hydrology. And I can't support this expansion. i would be if we were here today uh... if they were here asking for conditionally and you can issue to blast out here i would not support it either so i cannot support an expansion of something i would not uh... allowed in first place anyone else comments Just briefly, we've heard a lot of anecdotal testimony from the neighbors. It seems to me that if the mining operation is keeping and has kept seismographic evidence on their blasting operations and hasn't been cited for that, it would have been a simple matter for anyone else to set up a seismograph and present us with a seismograph showing that they are blasting out of compliance. and that could have been an exhibit to the objectors portion of this application. We didn't see that. If there had been dust on cars or excessive allowance of dust to accumulate on other property, that certainly could have been an exhibit that we could have seen dust-laden vehicles or any other piece of property. So all we heard about that was anecdotal evidence. So I have to discount it for that reason. Floral Cliff was here 50 years ago when this quarry operation began. It's still there. It's still in its pristine use. So I'm not sure that there's been shown any adverse effect on the existence of the mine so close to this pristine area because Floracliff is still there. There are environmentally sensitive areas in the area that are still environmentally sensitive. I visited the mine on January, what was it, 21st when we took the mine tour, saw the operation from top to bottom, and quite frankly was satisfied with what I saw, that these miners are responsible operators of the mine. Any mining operation is by definition dirty, it's by definition underground, and it's by definition designed to take the materials that are there, that's the product of the mining operation. So I haven't heard anything, in my opinion, in the eight hours of testimony that we've given to this application that would convince me to vote against the application. So my inclination is to permit it. Thank you. Anyone else? I have serious reservations about the long-term structural stability of the mine. This creates a significant and unnecessary risk to the groundwater and surface water vital to Floracliff. I am suspicious that groundwater and or surface water is already being lost to the mine from testimony in the 1989 case of reduced flows in Elklick Creek and because Vulcan will not allow Board of Adjustment access to or inspection of Level 1. Tour is not an inspection. I think there is merit to the arguments that the quarry subjects the surrounding properties with damaging vibration from blasting, truck traffic, dust, noise, and environmental damage to surface water and groundwater. It is not insignificant that the quarry is located in an area recognized for its rare and delicate environmental features, including it being immediately upstream from a 275-acre state nature sanctuary. There is unanimous neighborhood opposition. What are we supposed to do here if not protect the neighborhoods and the value of these existing neighborhoods that have already endured decades of abuse? I'd put all that aside for a moment and talk about Fulkin's disregard for the 1991 mining and quarrying ordinance that they helped draft. Why would they sit in that room and then think it didn't apply to them? They should have applied for an application for a permit triggering a conditional use hearing within six months of the law's passage back in 1991. This quarry has been operating without a conditional use permit for 20 years and I myself I find it impossible to consider an enlargement of this operation given the history of permitting abuses. Any other member? Well I just like to say I find this extremely difficult because I can see on the one hand I agree There is a need for a quarry and nobody wants to live near a quarry. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Fayette County should bear its fair share. I see there are three in Fayette County of the ten, although I think one of them is missing here. But anyway, there are three already in Fayette County. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns as well. So I just have to say I find this a very difficult case. I agree with Kathy. It's very difficult. Well, personally speaking, I've been around this board so many years that I've learned an awful lot from a lot of people. And one gentleman that I learned a lot from relative to people coming in here to plead their cases and also those people who come in to fight against programs that are not good for where they live. I learned from Mr. Bagby a long time ago that you have to listen to the constituency that lives where they live. And I am torn here between these two parties. You know, I was one of the individuals that visited the mine, down in the mine. I listened to them talk to us about where they were mining and how they were supporting the mine, how they were supporting the roof and things of this nature. I find it very difficult to go against the individuals who are here speaking against this particular conditional use permit. I find it difficult to do. And while I say that, whether we need a query or not is a little bit irrelevant. it's whether we need a program that's going to be as sufficed for everybody who lives close to it and around it is to me is the most important thing. And I'm right now I'm in the middle here with this. But I wanted you to know that to all of you people who live out there, I do understand why you're here. And I think all of us do. And for Vulcan, I understand where you are. I understand your business aspect of it, but the decision that's made here today is one that has to be made considering a lot more than that. So with that, I'm going to ask for a motion on this particular case. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that we disapprove C-2010-110 Vulcan Construction Materials appeals for conditional use permit to conduct underground mining of limestone in the agricultural AR and neighborhood business B1 zones on property located at 7200, 7210 and 7230 Turner Station Road based on these five findings of fact. The request cannot meet Zoning Ordinance Section 8-3-D9A as the request has proven to be a public nuisance due to the excessive noise, truck traffic, dust, vibrations from blasting and damage to the surrounding environment. Fact 2. Zoning Ordinance Section 7-6A states proof is required that this request would not have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood and since the existing quarry has already caused irreparable and permanent damage to its own property and the property of the surrounding neighbors, it cannot meet this requirement. Finding 3, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7-6A2 states that the adequate public facilities to serve this use shall be available to serve the proposed use, and since there are no fire hydrants within the 1,000 feet as stated in the comprehensive plan, as the rural standard for this site, no EMS unit and only a single fire truck within a nine mile radius, that requirement cannot be met. Fact 4. Zoning Ordinance Section 7-6A2 states that consideration shall be given to the adequacy of the road system, which in this case cannot be met as Old Richmond Road is only a two lane road with no shoulders and no passing lanes and the trucking operations associated with this request are not compatible with the other cars, farm machinery, and bicycles using this road. Fact 5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed expansion will not have an adverse impact on both the subject and surrounding properties. The requirements of the mining quarrying ordinance were adopted to impose basic conditions to ensure that such operations will not cause adverse impacts. Although this Board is not charged with the enforcing of the ordinance, it takes note of substantial evidence of a history of violations. Such noncompliance has already created adverse impacts and further expansion of this operation can be expected to cause additional adverse influences on the surrounding properties. Specifically, failure to comply with the buffer requirements have caused adverse impacts. Also, the lack of an adequate reclamation plan as required also raises concern on long-term adverse effects on the subject property. Do I have a second to the motion? Second. All in favor of the motion as read, please signify by raising your hand, please. All opposed? One opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You did a great job. You did a great job. You did a great job. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask him if you want the big corner next door. Thank you. We do our motion to adjourn. So moved. We adjourn.