who are here opposed to a particular case, before you bring the case before the board, we would ask that the two parties step outside and discuss the issue to see if it can be cleared up or compromised in any way or if it can be adjusted to both sides' benefit. If not, when you come back, we will hear your case. all of those individuals who are here to testify, we'd like for you to stand and raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Can I hear you? Thank you. Thank you. As the case is run, those cases that have opposition, we will move your case to the back of the hearing. Those cases that do not have anyone here in opposition, we will hear your cases as they come before us in the first part of the order. We have, first of all, to deal with the approval of the minutes of October 29, 2010, February 25, 2011, April 29, 2011, May 20, 2011, and June 24, 2011. The Board has received these minutes via the mail and have had an opportunity to read and mark their concerns or questions. So at this time, we will, should we take those all in order or should we take them one by one or should we take them all as one minute? You mean the minutes? Yes. If there are no motions to amend or revise the minutes in any way, then I think you can do a motion on all of them at once. If there are any suggested changes, I would suggest that that one at least be in a separate motion. Thank you. Then I would ask the board and members, if you have any questions or amendments or concerns for any of those, please voice them now, or we will vote on all of them at once. So are there any questions about any of the minutes? I move we approve those minutes for the four meetings. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Minutes approved. Thank you. Lewis? Yes. There was also minutes sent later for October 29th. October the 29th. I thought I mentioned that. 2010. You did. I thought I mentioned that. Was that included in there? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. Any other concerns? Any other questions? And we will start with the cases. Case number 1, V2011-27, Johnny Temple. It's my understanding that there is postponements, or is there anyone in here who has cases that they want to withdraw or postpone? If so, please come to the podium. Is John Temple here? I spoke with him yesterday, and he submitted an e-mail request for a postponement. They intend to modify their application to ask for an administrative appeal. So for them to do that, the quickest they can get back on would be the end of September hearing. So it would need to be a two-month postponement if you choose to do that. Do I, does the board have any recommendations to accept the September postponement date for this hearing? Mr. Chairman, I'll move that V2011-27 Johnny Temple be postponed until the September Board of Adjustment Meeting. Do I have a second? I second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. All right. The next case is V2011-48 Lexington Properties. Is anyone here representing Lexington Properties? Anyone here in opposition to Lexington Properties? Okay. The next case is going to be V201149, Doris Doherty. Is Ms. Doherty here? Is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case? And the staff has recommended disapproval, so Ms. Doherty, we will move that case to the next to the last or back to the last if that's where it falls. 4. V.2011-50, Kenny and Regina Holbrook. Is anyone here in opposition to that case? The staff has recommended approval so we will hear that in this order. We have a conditional use appeal share in D is 2011-43 Punchestown Stable LLC. Anyone here? Now, this is appeals for conditional use permit. We've heard this case before, but I understand they are coming back for another request here. Is anyone here? Anyone here in opposition? In opposition? We have one in opposition. So we'll take that to the last. The applicants are here aren't they? Thank you. C211-44, First Alliance Church. The staff has recommended approval. Is there anyone here from First Alliance Church? Anyone here in opposition? We shall hear that as it falls. C2011-45, John Strickland. Is anyone here in opposition to this particular appeal? All right, we'll hear that as it falls. C211-46, PetSmart. here from PetSmart? Anyone here in opposition? All right. And the last one, I believe, is C211-47, Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church. Anyone here in opposition to Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church? All right. And we will take these cases as they come to us. And the first case is going to be Lexington Properties, I believe. So if the individuals representing Lexington Properties will come forward, please, and present your case. And the staff has recommended approval for this particular case, and it's appeals for variance to reduce the required yard along Shenandoah Drive from 30 to 16.3 feet for construction of an attached garage in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1115 Della Drive, Council District 11. So give your name and tell us who you are. Steve Perry, owner of Lexington Properties. I'm in agreement with all the recommendations other than the one that says to plant four trees along Shenandoah, two to the north and two to the south of the driveway. In my site plan, it does not show an electric easement on the back of my property. I feel if I was to plant two trees back there, eventually one would be cut down. Would it be possible to change the two street trees to the north of my driveway to one and three to the south? In my site plan, I believe I could plant a street tree or a tree, I shouldn't refer to a street tree, every 25 feet along Shenandoah. Does the staff have any questions or concerns regarding this request that's not listed here? I think we should look at it on the site plan. We'll get it up on the overhead and find out exactly where that easement is he's talking about, where the trees might go better. If you look at the, where it says proposed garage, to the left. Is that where the shaded area is there? That's correct, sir. All right. The back property does not show the overhead electric easement. There is wires there. I'm not sure if there is an easement or not, but I just felt if we tried to plant two trees. Have you got a pointer? He can show us up there what he's talking about, please. Show us where the wires are and where they run from and to. There's an electric easement straight down here. And what would the trees be in conjunction to that? One here. One there. One there. One there. Would that be a concern for you all or for engineering? And what kind of problem do you think it would create with having the trees there versus not having them there? Of course, I understand it's probably the size of the trees you're going to put in there. They're going to grow to the height of the wires. When I purchased this property about, I don't know, 70, 80 days ago, there was no garage. This property had been rental property for about 16 years. The backyard was completely grown up, and the sidewalk along Shenandoah, you hadn't been able to walk down that sidewalk for a number of years. We completely cleaned all of the backyard up and have made it usable now. You know, we were going to plant some trees back, so I'm really not opposed to not planting any. it's just the location. I just feel it's going to be a little tight if I was to try and plant two in the backyard to the north side of the driveway knowing that 10, 15 years down the road from now if we have an ice storm it could possibly take down the power lines and everything. So that's why I was going to see if the board would be in agreement to let's take one out since we have a little bit more distance towards the front. Would staff have any problem with that? We're fine with that. And, you know, there's nothing magic about the four. And rather than force three in to the south, we would be fine with just two to the south and one to the north. Okay. So would you get that, put that down in writing where we can look at it please relative to number four? I just have a Question for planning. Is this any different than what's required for street trees on the plant? Because the plant usually requires X amount of street trees per lot anyhow, and I didn't know if we were being redundant in requiring more trees that's really required by the plant. The only difference really, I think, would be where they're planted. This restriction would require them to be on the house side of the sidewalk where street tree usually is in the utility strip. That's fine. I think that's all the difference. So we're now going to remove a tree and put two trees, were the two trees on the north side or on the south side, or one tree on the north side or on the south side? Which way? One tree on the north. Okay. And two on the south. Okay. Board, do you have any questions or concerns regarding that request? No, but staff should take out on number four at the beginning. The fourth word still says four, so it should say a minimum of three small to medium-sized trees. Other than that, are you in agreement to all of the other conditions? Yes, sir. Are there any questions from the board? I'd just like to note that the staff recommends approval of a variance along Shenandoah Drive from 30 to 18 feet, which is slightly different from what the appeal says originally to 16-3. So are you okay? That's correct. Is the applicant okay with that? Any other questions? If not, I'll hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the 2011-48 Lex Properties Appeals for Variance to Reduce the Required Side Yard along Shenandoah Drive from 30 to 18 feet for construction of an attached garage in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1015 Della Drive for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions with the amendment of the planting of three trees rather than four. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passed. Good luck to you, sir. Thank you. All right. The next case is, should we hear this? No, that's last. C2011-44. Hold on. Oh, excuse me. Regina Holbrook. Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. V20-11-50, Kenny and Regina Holbrook. Can you tell us who you are, please? Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jason Banks. I'm with Banks Engineering. I'm here today on behalf of Kenny and Regina Holbrook. We are in agreement with staff's recommendations and would request approval of our variance. And the staff has recommended approval and the conditions are three and you say you have agreed, you've read them and you understand? Yes, sir. Are there any questions from the board regarding this case? Our staff or? If not, I will open the floor for a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I approve that we, on item number V, 2011-50, I move that we approve Kenny and Regina Holdbrook's appeal for a variance to reduce the required yard along Jack's Creek Pike from 300 feet to 221 feet in order to construct a detached garage in the agricultural zone on property located at 4300 Ravens Crest Lane, Council District 12, as recommended by staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Case number 2011-44, First Alliance Church. I will after this, yeah. Who are you, please? My name is Art Davis. I'm the business manager at First Alliance Church. Mr. Davis, the staff has recommended approval subject to sixth condition. Have you read and do you understand and do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, we do. Are there any questions from the board or staff regarding this particular case? If not, I'll hear a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that C-2011-44 First Alliance Church appeals for conditional use permit to expand the church parking lot with grass reinforcement material and agriculture urban zone on property located at 2201 Old Higby Mill Road be approved with the conditions set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? All in favor of signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Good luck with it. Thank you. Case number C2011-45, John Strickland. Now, before we take this case, I want to remind those of you who have opposition to cases that, in particular, the conditional use permit would punch this town stable. If you all would like to step outside and discuss this with the individuals who are making this appeal, maybe you can come to some kind of agreement. If not, please ease back in, and we'll take your case. All right. Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. The staff has recommended approval, but also six conditions. Mm-hmm. Have you read? Do you understand them? Yes, we have. Do you agree to go by those conditions? We were hoping that we would not be limited to Tuesday through Sunday being able to be open seven days a week, if possible. Well, you need to explain why you're asking that. Because we're hoping, we want to be open as much as possible to allow the police departments to be able to use our facility. We would be okay with only Tuesday through Sunday, but Monday through Sunday would be ideal. Staff, do you have any concerns and issues? We put that in there. That was what the original request was, so we're okay with amending it. So what are you asking for? For seven, be able to be open seven days a week. Say that again, I don't understand. Be able to be open seven days a week from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. So we're going to have Monday through Sunday, right? Yes, sir. We can just strike out the reference to Tuesday through Sunday and just say limited to 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Would you have any questions or concerns regarding this or anyone? Any other staff members have concerns with this request? You said you agree with the rest of it, right? Yes, sir. We don't have any questions from the board or staff. I'll open the floor for a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve C-2011-45 John Strickland's appeal for conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility in a light industrial zone on property located at 2156 Young Drive, based on the staff's recommendation for approval and subject to the six conditions with the first condition amended to allow them to operate seven days a week. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Good luck with it. Thank you, sir. KC 211-46, PetSmart. Good afternoon. I'm Michelle Mernick. I'm the store manager and corporate representative for PetSmart. I'm here for the approval of our expanded adoption center. The staff has recommended approval and subject to four conditions. Have you read and understand? Yes. And your representatives understand that? Yes. Any questions from staff or the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2011-46 PetSmart Appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the adoption center portion of an existing pet store in a planned shopping center B-6P zone on property located at 1945 Pavilion Way in Council District 6 as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck. Case number C211-47, Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church. Good afternoon. My name is Earl Thomas. I've been pastor of this church for 54 years. I've seen you around for about a year. Spring chicken. And we are agreeable to the five conditions that's been placed on building the parking lot. And the staff has recommended approval. subject to the five conditions you have read and you will agree to those conditions. Are there any questions from staff or the board? If not, I will hear motion. Mr. Chair, on item C, 2011-47, Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the parking lot in a single-family residential R1B zone on property located at 616 Wilderness Road, Council District 4. I move to approve as recommended by staff, subject to the five conditions as recommended by staff. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Good luck, Rev. Thank you. Now we go back to the first case where we have opposition. In that case, it's V2011-49, Doris Doherty. Ms. Doherty, would you come forward, please? Yes, tell us who you are, please. My name is Doris Doherty. Ms. Doherty, the staff has recommended disapproval of this particular case for four following reasons, A, B, C, and D. And we are going to allow you to present your case and your circumstances, and hopefully somewhere down the road we can help. But we want to hear you. Okay. So the carport that we're talking about. We don't have a picture of that either, do we? We should have. Yes. Would you please? I saw some men doing construction next door, and I inquired about a carport. And I was told by them that I did not need a permit to build as long as it was not attached to my house. I paid this man $2,000. And when my son-in-law came out and he saw this, he says, Gran, this is not proper. You need to go down and get a permit to put a roof on this. Well, I did that, and that's when, excuse me. Let's take your time, ma'am. that's when I found out that it was all wrong this is after I had paid in full and some of my son-in-law's friends said we can make this look better and we bricked four of the wooden poles that was up so that's where I stand I need it because when I go to work I'm 73 years old I've survived an aneurysm I cannot shovel snow I'm sorry if I could I'll give Ms. Dardy a chance to get her composure she came to us with hat in hand. She has been the victim of a far less than honest contractor without a doubt. who I am seeking so I can take care of that end of it. We've had an inspector go out on site and look at this thing. And we've come up with some ideas of resolution to try to get it structurally sound. This is by no fault in the starting. It's an untrue familiar story that we're dealing with these days. As far as the variance, that's certainly up to you folks. I think we can help her as much as possible to try to get this thing corrected and safe and try to help restore some of her anxiety here. But we are in pursuit of this gentleman and trying to do the right thing in that respect. And that leads me to a question to staff and to you and to our legal over there. How can we best handle this case? The staff has recommended disapproval. And seeing this property, I know there are some problems there. And since you all have recognized this and understand that it's not her fault, and I agree with you all throughout this Commonwealth, senior citizens of this situation are being taken total advantage of in a lot of things relative to their property from the roof on down to the ground. What kind of recommendation can we make to her where she doesn't have to come back within a year, but can withdraw from this case and allow the engineering to work with her? What can we do? Were you contemplating something where there would be a lesser variance requested? I mean, the problem is the staff. recommendations did not find a basis for the variance and found that this was totally out of character with the neighborhood. So I'm not sure what you're looking for in a recommendation. Mr. Chairman, I was curious about this as well. One of the grounds for the recommendations for disapproval suggests that item number C says there are other alternatives available that would allow construction of a carport without the need for a front yard variance. I'm kind of curious to explore what staff might mean by that. What other alternatives are there? The only alternative that we could identify that was adequate, certainly not ideal from the applicant's perspective, would be to move the carport around looking at this, the left side of the residence. There is an issue there with at least one large tree that would have to be removed. It's another one there. I'm not sure about the other one, but. It's there. Part of the logic with our thinking here is that even if the variance was approved, the structures are going to have to be substantially altered to the extent that the roof probably will have to be totally rebuilt. So our thinking was if you're going to have to totally rebuild something, let's rebuild it at a more suitable location that maybe not from her perspective is certainly not as desirable but adequate. And there's no way from looking at this, what you had up there, that that carport could be moved rather than to the back where the 36-foot height is, to the corner of the house where coming out she could get into there and out of there from the corner rather than going around where the tree is? That's an option. It wouldn't be as much of a variance. It would be a lesser variance. I couldn't tell you precisely. We could maybe draw that out a little bit if you wanted. But still being it to the side, though, would just project out a little bit more to allow her more convenient access to the front door? Yes, this is what I'm speaking to. It would seem to me it would make a lot more convenient sense that that would be possible, rather than to force her to have to come outside and still get in the bad weather to get back to the carport. And I think that's their concern more so than – and then if you put that expense on her of moving two trees back there, that's an additional expense that I hope we could be able to avoid. I looked at this and I had a major concern about it for a lot of reasons, not just for the aesthetics of the neighborhood, but for her safety as well. And the way it is right now, a good windstorm comes through there and you're not safe. I just think that if engineering is willing to work with her along with the staff to correct this, I would have to vote no to the approval the way it is right now, but also understanding that they are willing to work with you to try to work something out to get this thing done right. And I hope that we're able to put some pressure on the person that put that up there for you to get it reconstructed properly by someone else. So I am, as I said, I can't vote for this to be approved like it is. But I would be able to hopefully sound enough influence to the staff and to the engineering that they can help you. If you have a question. Are you objecting to the location or the structure itself? The structure. Okay. I feel like our office can help her with those issues. Obviously right now she's just looking for some relief on location. It's a huge impact financially on her. I think if we can correct structural items that we're concerned about, that's palatable to us and to her. We're trying to make this. I'm not speaking for the whole board. I would hope that you and staff could be able to work something out regarding this situation where there is no conflict between what they do and a setting of presidents versus what we have to do by ruling on it. I understand that. I'm just trying to make sure that the objection is not how it's built more than the location. Any other questions from the – Well, I have to say that I'm totally in agreement with Jim Marks in that as it stands, it's unsafe, and it's not an inappropriate location to begin with. So tearing that roof off of there, it's going to have to come off anyway. And so what you're left with is a couple of columns that don't have much value. I think we ought to start from scratch and consider where it ought to go. That being said, if this board decides to allow a carport in the front of your house, even though it would be a bad precedent, maybe there could be a condition where when you sell the house or the house transfers, it will be torn down. I mean, I'm just trying to think outside the box. If we were to leave something like that in front of your house and deny it to other people, there's got to be some reason why we would deny it to other people on your street that would want to do the same thing. And it would be a hardship case, and it would be torn down when you sell the house. That's an idea. Sell in my house. Well, it will eventually be sold. We're only on the earth for a short period of time. Yes, ma'am. That's what I'm talking about. We wouldn't object to a postponement if you want to get us all together and try to see what we can come up with. I would also say that if you deny, if you were to disapprove this, it would not prevent her from coming back and asking for another variance in a lesser amount. In other words, if something more worked out like you were discussing earlier, to have part of it tucked in at the side of the house so that it doesn't project as far and say instead of a variance from 30 feet to 11, she'd be asking from, say, 30 feet to 20. That would be if this board felt that that was sufficiently different. She would not be prohibited from coming back earlier than the usual delay period because that would be a substantially different variance. But she would have to reapply, and she'd have the fee and all of that. Is that correct? That would be correct. Would a postponement accomplish the same thing? I think she could postpone and amend the plan to decrease the amount of the requested variance, yes. Do you understand that, Ms. Doherty? That we would, if we vote right now, based the way it is, it'd have to be disapproved. But if we vote to postpone this, it gives you the opportunity to work with engineering and the staff to come up with something probably feasible for what you're trying to do. Can I speak? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I've saved money to do this, to put the roof on properly. I understand. I have the money to do that. I don't have the money to take out trees. I don't have money to start over. I'm poor. I don't have. I understand, and I think the board understands, and I think staff and engineering understand. That's why they're trying to find a reasonable way to help you. Well, if the trees come out, then I don't have a tree in my yard. I've been in that house. I'm one of the original buyers. I don't owe a dime on it. It's paid for. The trees have been there all these years. I'd have to take out all those trees. I think we would not want to force you to take out any trees. I would have to if I go to the side of my house. You know, it appears from the drawing that there's only 17 feet on the side of the house, so I'm not sure that's a feasible alternative going to the side. We're talking really about how to amend the existing structure to make it comply with something that we might approve. But in order to do that, you'd have to go back to the staff and talk with engineering and the staff about how to accomplish that. And that's more than we can take care of in our hearing today. So what we're recommending is that we postpone this hearing and not take a vote on it, because as the Chairman says, if we vote on it now, it's not likely to pass. So our better suggestion, and it's to your benefit, that we postpone this application until a later time, if that's agreeable with you. The snow's coming in November. Thank you. Any other questions? Just a concern with Mrs. Doherty. If she could find out today who she needs to go and talk with, if, you know, there are people here that could help her do that. Mrs. Doherty, there are people here, if you would like to see Mr. Sally or Mr. Hume here, they would be able to help you, you know, know who's going to come out and work with you and see if we can work this out for you. The people from the city. Mr. Hume here on the end. She and I are acquainted. I spoke to her the first initial time, and I think Mr. Dillon may have come out and spoke to you. I'm not sure, but I'll remain in contact with you. I need to talk to you about trying to get some additional information about your contract. With that staff, do you have a problem with it being postponed? No, sir. We might suggest maybe two months just to allow enough time to look at several options. Board, do you have any questions, concerns? If not, I'll hear the motion. Mr. Chairman, pertaining to the 2011-49 Doris Doherty, her appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 11 feet, etc., as it says there, I recommend that we, or I move that we postpone this for two months. Do I have a second? I second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. The next case we have here will be C2-1143 Punchestown Stable LLC. Come forward, please. I gather you all didn't step outside, did you? No. That tells me the story. This won't take long because my name is Bill Dowden. Members of the board, I appreciate you letting me speak. I've not come to one of these before. I did not have an opportunity to read the recommendations of your staff and all the conditions, and I agree with 100% of them. So in the context of what you put here, I'm in agreement with Sean and Sarah Riley in their effort to do what they're going to do at Punchdown. But I'd like to, just for a moment, if you'll let me give me two minutes to give the board a little bit of history, because it's important, if you make these recommendations, that they be adhered to completely. We've had a long history of things being brought in this direction only as an afterthought, not in preparation for it. I've been at my location in adjacent property since 1984. I also own a piece of property now on the Belmar Estates and have a vested interest in that, but that is a temporary ownership. When I purchased my property, it was part of a 240-acre farm. I purchased 80 acres. The adjacent farm, the adjacent 160 acres was bought by Curtis Green. He had a thoroughbred operation there for many years. They later came to me and said, how would you feel about changing that to an equestrian development, utilizing our central barn as a central location for people who have an interest in horses and whatever. So it sounds like a great idea. Support it 100%. Subsequently, things changed, and they had someone purchase more than a 10-acre track and establish a training facility for their own horses. And as it turned out, essentially none of the other owners there had an equestrian interest that we know of. Ultimately, those people sold their business and was purchased by and is run by Sean and Sarah Riley. What has changed in the last seven or eight years is that the land has deteriorated massively. I personally have recovered 48 acres, put in water control issues and things long before this was a popular thing to do, reestablished and recreated land that was eroded, exposed rocks and all that, and now this year we're embarking upon erasing organic hay. with normal heavy rainstorms. For years, we'd always get some runoff somewhere, but never to the extent that we've had this for the last four years. I'm having erosion of my roadway and my entrance, which abuts the existing farm at Punchtown. Earlier in the year that led up to this development was the approval of a building for training. The initial objection related to the original sketch did not have with it a topographical map that even addressed the issues of water runoff, and hence an objection. Efforts to discuss this were very difficult, and that's the reason I didn't go outside. I want them to succeed, but I would like for them to be really good neighbors. The status of the land upon which their horses and their paddocks on the back side of their farm are harder than your countertops. Exposed rock, weeds, deteriorating fences this morning, and a four-plank fence, three of the lower ones are out. There are horses that are in there. And so when we have these applications for other things to take place, we know that there's been an event there without the proper approval, it's already occurred. And that elicited a response from those of us in the neighborhood. This is really a tough situation because I want them to do what they want to do. But if you can see where I started 25 years ago, every time it was changed, someone came and said, this is what we want to do. Do we have your support? And if it's reasonable and rational, I said, sure, go to it. because you take care of the land and you do the things you need to do. So we're at a crossroads where we now have a very large building. It's well done. It does not impact the water runoff from my facility. We're getting ready with the recommendations that your staff has made subject to the conditions. I think it's great. The only thing I would challenge you is these have to stay intact in order for me personally to have approval. I approve everything that's here. This will work. This will absolutely work. But it won't work if there's a significant deviation from that, which unfortunately has been a bit of the history. So that's the only thing I have to say. It's important, I think, that we not have the nightlights out. I have witnessed on that property within 100 yards of the location of those structures. The original stable was burned to the ground with loss of equipment and livestock. Another structure that was substantial, a barn, was burned to the ground from a lightning strike. Another substantial structure was flattened to the ground by sheer winds. We're in an odd place. And so I think it's important that the way the facilities and things are used are used in compliance with the safety of the people that come there to use it. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Yes, sir. May we have representatives? Before you sit down, I'd like to ask you a question. Excuse me. I'm sorry, Jim. Excuse me, sir. Have you given some thought to what you would add as a condition so that these people would adhere to better farming practices? I mean, what can we add to these conditions to ensure that your property is not damaged by what's going on next door? Well, in fairness, they have a different operation than a normal farming operation. operation. They have land that's utilized for very specific training purposes, not really farm in a normal way. And we've made adjustments on our side of the land to protect virtually all of our interests from the standpoint of the land that we wish to avoid the erosion and stuff in. So I don't know of anything I could suggest them now for the land that down to Bear Rock, how they could recover it. I just don't have the ability to do that. And the places where they impact me as far as access to my property, the state has come and repaired the road on two occasions, and they probably are going to be obligated to do that. What I'm saying is a standard shower now results in runoff, whereas it had to be a deluge to create that for. That's an absolute fact. And so it's different. It's like it's raining on your roof. It runs off that fast. And that's just by virtue of the way it's being used. I'm not going to dispute how they want to take care of the horses. I don't want their horses in lush grass up to their belly. They prefer a dry lot. But unfortunately, because of the topography, it's resulted in significant erosion. It is really a big deal. From an aesthetic view, of course, I'd love for all the fences. to be maintained. I'd love for the in the city inside the service area we cannot have weeds that are this high and thistles and stuff that you then all the wind, they're on the southwest side of our place. All that stuff comes in our direction. It's just the way it is. It's part of being in the country. So I wouldn't pretend to tell them what to do with the kind of operation they have. It's different than a true agriculture. It's more of a commercial enterprise related to horses. But you do have a complaint about the use of outdoor lighting that needs to be reiterated? Well, they haven't. And there have been some efforts to event or have things out there at times in the evening, not at their place. But there were some other places in our end of the county. And when the lights were turned on, it was overpowering. So knowing that, that's one of the restrictions which your staff has recommended. So they don't have a history of illegal outdoor light use? Not the Raleigh's, no. But there has been that, and that was actually in a different setting on a different property, and that's been resolved. Well, I can sympathize with you if you're fighting nodding thistles and you see the sources on the other side of the fence, but that really seems like a neighbor-to-neighbor problem. That's exactly what it is. That's exactly what it is. Thank you. Yeah, sure. May I have the representatives from Punch Town Stables, please? Hello, I'm Sean, and this is my wife, Sarah. Welcome. The staff has recommended approval. They give their reasons, and also there were four conditions relative to this, and you've heard what your neighbors had to say. Yeah, and everything he said is fair. I mean, I know what he's saying. It's a fact. With regard to the part that's adjoining or close to his property, the last two paddocks that are neglected, when we were down here the last time we had Mr. Lloyd was representing these guys and you gave me the opportunity to go outside and see if we could work something out and I went out and he complained about it and I said I will fix all that, I will put plantings in if we can just come to some agreement he said no, I'd like to take my chance inside so he turned me down I have left those you know and since then he has complained about everything we have done. He really has. All winter long I've had conversations with members of the board for, there was water leaking from one of our paddocks to another one of our paddocks and I had to go get a silt fence. I mean, he just disrupts everything. But in regards to Dr. Dowden, I'd love to be a good neighbor. His son worked for me for years. He's a great guy. I love him. Son. And I think he's okay too. When he's talking about the entrance to his property where the city had to come out and fix it, that's not our property. That's a different property. That keeps coming up. It's not our property. That's another property that that's leaking from. That's the Pasha's property. It's not ours. They keep bringing that up. They call downtown about it. It's not us. Well, it seems as though when he was here, the gentleman was up there, he says he is in agreement with the conditions that have been placed here. Our concern for you is that do you understand those conditions? And are you willing to abide completely by those conditions? Yes, we have one addendum. It's the loudspeaker thing. What we use as a loudspeaker is a handheld device with one speaker. It's essential for us to let people know this class is next. This is the horse that's in the ring. Everything is done in a monotone. There's no loud commentary. We've been having these horse shows for seven years, twice a year for seven years, and no one's ever complained about the noise. It's just a monotonous drone. The loudspeaker thing is actually important to us because that would hurt us. It would hurt us a lot. It would hurt our business. The rest of the things, I would like nothing better than to be a good neighbor and take care of what we've got. Mr. Hume. I'd just like to say that in this whole process, these folks have been very cooperative of what we've asked them to do, very forthcoming with any questions that we may have had with this. So I want the board to know that they have been cooperative throughout this whole process, and I don't feel that in the future we'll have any compliance issues because they've up to this point been so cooperative. Thank you. And I think Jim probably hit the nail on the head here. I think this is more of a neighbor situation than it is a compliance relative to what the staff is requesting of you guys out there. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. We have a question down there from one of our members, please. Okay. How can we accommodate your need to have a handheld loudspeaker with the ordinance that says that you can't? Just a minute. Excuse me. We discussed this in our staff meeting this morning as a definite amateur who in horse shows frequently. My first comment was you cannot have a bunch of horses in the ring in a class without a speaker that's going to, that the participants are going to be able to hear what they're supposed to do next. And in our discussions, we interpreted this restriction, which is in the ordinance, to mean that you cannot have a permanent, wired loudspeaker system, which is going to, in essence, be intended to project throughout the entire large area, and that what he's discussing, which is a portable, temporary system, which I've experienced, it's not loud and blaring like the built-in loudspeaker systems, that that would not be restricted by this condition. So as long as it remains a small, portable system with his one speaker, just to allow it to be heard on the property, that would not be in contradiction with this condition. Do we need to make some accommodation for that distinction in the conditions? Should it work just to put the word fixed before loudspeakers, or is that to? Yeah, I think you could just add permanently installed loudspeakers. And you said you've been doing this for seven years? You'd had these horse shows for seven years? Yes, we did not know we needed to get a permit. And you've had no complaints? No, no. We also do not have outside lights, so we can't run them at night. So we're going to add no permanent loudspeakers, but they may use the portable ones, I guess, right? Handheld speakers. Am I correct? Okay. Any other questions? Jim, do you have any questions? No, I was just looking at all of these letters. And at first they seemed like they were half and half, but it's really heavily wasted support for the group. And there are only two shows per year, right? So I'm pretty satisfied. Great. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Yes, sir. We have someone else back there with you, and we'll get to you in just a moment, sir. You all will sit down right there. We will. Yes, sir. Come on up, sir. No, the gentleman in the back. We'll get to you just shortly. My name is Han. My wife and I own the adjoining property. I'm a retired professor from the university and naturally when we bring up items, I think we only have one neighbor who's neighbor who is complaining of the items. There are other neighbors around who have similar problems with hard soil due to lack of rain. We have similar problems with our tractor making more noise than the neighbor's tractor. But as long as I have lived there, even with the horseshoes, I had no interference in my living. Nothing was there. No other things we have built for bonds around there which some which went through the Board of Adjustments some which don't now these people then complain about the neighbors it's a neighbor by neighbor problem I think we are living very well out there we are there now the noise issue as an engineer I asked what's the noise issue. What decibels do we have? So he put two bonds on either side of his horse show. One is concrete, very much absorbing of noise, so the noise doesn't get anybody. The noise issue is phony. I didn't hear any loud noises. So yes, we We have some problems as any neighborhood, like dogs and building barns without permission. But we are getting along, and I think we all wish Sean and Sarah well in their affairs. Their lawn, their grass is just soil is as hard as mine. the PA system I can't hear it I live right 180, 200 feet away my hearing may be bad as I get older but my wife says nobody else and the runoff I looked at my property looked at the neighbor's property looked at the property they just purchased there is additional runoff in their frontale additional runoff from normal heavy gushing grains. So some of that, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is just little neighbor problems. I mean, I don't mind it complaining about a neighbor. I go over and talk to him. But when you go and try to be legal and getting on somebody else's property to take pictures so you can go and present it against your neighbor, it gets a little thick. And I like my neighbors in the I don't have any objections to their new bomb, which didn't go through the board of adjustments. And so my question is, let them do their thing. They have training, good program, and I love to see those little kids go out there and show their stuff to their parents, what they had just learned from them, but it's not very often. and I have essentially living right next to it and the rest who live on the other side have no objections. We have the largest adjacent set to it. Now the recommendations, they are a little picky. I have no other words to say a little nitpicking to comply with somebody. let's have a little common sense. These guys have horseshoes. I had a wedding party at my house with over 50 cows. There were some boisterous boys out there. My grandson got married there. We made more racket than they ever did. Nobody complained about that. So I think we got to be a little giving. there is not any major concern and the runoff I can document that on any property I can document it on their new property across the street there's a ditch in front of the house it's deeper than ever before they didn't do it it's a road it's rain it's the weather and I wish those luck and I wish my neighbor good luck and we enjoyed our friendship with them and I look forward to the future with them but I think we should treat them all the same and I don't want to object against their bounds they put up without notifying us. It's fine with me but I don't object against them either. Thank you for letting me talk. Thank you sir. Yes ma'am. I'm Joyce Hahn, and I agree with everything my husband said, but I wanted to make my own statement, too, just because I want to support Sean and Sarah, and it's very short. We live on this property adjoining Punchestown Stables. And, by the way, with that loudspeaker, I can barely hear everything they say down at my place, even when I want to hear who's going, or just to see if I could hear. Not that much. But my husband and I support the efforts of Sean and Sarah Riley in teaching, riding, and training horses on their 30-acre farm. Whenever property is for sale in the area, the existence and presence of the farm and stable are mentioned as the enhancements which they are. The horse show that was held in the spring had almost no traffic on Belmar Lane because the people who participated entered from Tate's Creek Road right on to the Riley's farm. There is no problem with this, and I might add there never has been a problem, even when there was some use of Belmar Lane. We are in support of the horse shows at Punchestown Stables. We are welcoming these events as an example of the good work done by Sean and Sarah in training both horses and riders. This is what Fayette County and all of Kentucky is so proud of. It is important to exhibit the expertise that they are developing in the dedicated sportsmen who depend on them for a place to learn and experience the joy of horsemanship. We appreciate the daily presence and pleasure of seeing the horses and the riders, too, who work so very hard throughout the year. Sean and Sarah work 24-7 to make their farm successful, and they deserve the support of the neighborhood. I will repeat for the record that we live right next door to this farm and are not in the least disturbed by the activities that go on over there. And last of all, what kind of sad story would it be if Punchestown Stables failed? And we were left with a great big old empty barn and no horses in the fields. And as it is, this little farm is a treasure. Thank you. Yes, sir. As you can see, we're all supporting them in their endeavor to have their business. But I do want to set one thing perfectly clear. I don't know how many engineers you have here. But Sean has to realize that the runoff comes from his farm, our neighbor, Pasha. The runoff that is interrupting our driveway, water doesn't run uphill. I'm sorry, coming down Crawley Lane, sitting there. I took pictures of the water hitting the thing higher than this podium as it came up over the road, a geyser so high. And the runoff is two confluent things that come together. And perhaps what I should do as the neighbor that you challenged me to be is call him and have him come over and look at it. When I built a place, we're aware of this topography thing. Our engineers, when they put in our lane to our house, recommended what we did. And 25 years ago, bulldozer work was done there to keep the water away and divert it to the culver that was developed. Now the erosion has moved that line several yards, and now it's problematic. It's just the way it is. And Dr. Hahn is right. Lots of rain makes it worse, but it wasn't just this season. It wasn't last. It's a product of the inability of the land to absorb. You can look at the other places that historically have drained when we have these delusions. They still do their normal thing. This thing is completely out of sync. It's a runoff just like pouring it on your roof. A little shower gives you a lot of stuff in the downspout. So that's a problem. So my challenge to my neighbor, and you can probably perceive that there has developed an issue of ill will resulting in an objection to things that they want to do. And it shouldn't be brought here, but this is a safer environment for it to be discussed. And so from the engineering perspective, there is a real issue with water. I know the city and the county and everything were being hit with a lot of stuff that we had to pay for. And I put $70,000, $80,000 into controlling water runoff from my farm so it doesn't hit the Kentucky River. and that's just where I stand with it. So I want to correct that one item. I support what they're doing wholeheartedly. It sounds to me like everybody seems to be in support. The written material we have here, they're in support. To me, just sitting here and listening, it sounds to me like there's an issue involving the neighbors in particular that I think needs to be worked out with the neighbors, and maybe the individuals from water can help. but I don't think it can be done by the nitpicking and the nagging and by creating ill will out there with neighbors regardless of who they are. What I would suggest to do, and it has nothing to do with what we vote here, is that if this case is approved, I would suggest that you all maybe contact Water and find out how you can correct the problem out there together. not just one family or one person, but the entire area to find out how it can be worked out. But from this point, we have nothing to do with that. We're not here to determine whether the water is running or where it isn't running. We're here to determine this particular case, and from where I sit, I think that's what we have to do. So did you have a comment you wanted to make, sir? Staff, do you have a comment? Anyone else? Engineering, water? Do you have a comment? I guess I can throw my two cents in. I met with Mr. Riley when they first started building their covered riding area, and it was based on a complaint that there was an erosion problem being created by that grading work. When we went out and looked at it, it really wasn't that. What we noticed was that the runoff was coming from those paddocks that direct toward Crawley Lane. At that time, we looked into what issues we could deal with based on our local ordinances, and with this being agriculture use in the rural service area, we're really limited on what we can do as far as enforcement, for example, if there is an erosion control problem. I'd be more than happy to get together a few folks and we can meet with them out there to try to determine what needs to happen. That's kind of our . . . I'd like to add one more thing, and that is if you've got paddocks with no cover crop on them, no root system holding the soil there, then those paddocks ought to be taken out of service, and there should be some vegetation allowed to mature. It's a bad land steward that lets his topsoil disappear. Yeah, they are not. Excuse me. They're not dirt paddocks. They have, right. They have, exactly. If you're losing topsoil, if your dirt is going away, then your land is being overused. Well, it's something to consider. I understand what you're saying. It's a valid point. We're getting painted to be something that we're not. We're good. We're good at what we do. I think if you want to solve that issue and solve that issue together as a neighborhood and neighbors, you would seek the expertise to find out what the issue is. or you don't have a problem. That's just my advice to you. We're not going to discuss that particular situation anymore relative to the water. We're here to talk about your particular case, okay? Thank you. Thank you. Sit down, sir. Is there anyone else has a question or concern regarding the issue at hand? Then I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, with respect to KC 2011-43 Punch Town Stable LLC, appeal for a conditional use permit to allow seasonal horse shows at an equine riding and training facility in the agricultural rural AR zone on properties located at 1210 Belmar Lane and 7510 Tates Creek Road, I move that the application be approved as recommended by the staff and with the four recommendations listed as amended on the screen. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Good luck out there. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, you have any? We'll adjourn. Anybody? I hear a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All in favor signify the saying aye. Aye. Moved. Day is over.