# Board of Adjustment Meeting - March 25, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 25, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2117 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2117?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-03-25 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 9,626 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 March 25, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mr. Chair presiding. The board considered 10 agenda items, including variances for setback and landscape buffer reductions, conditional use permits for various commercial and institutional uses, and reviews of existing conditional use permits. The board took 10 motions and votes during the meeting and heard 3 public comments. Of the items considered, 9 were approved and 1 was postponed. The approved items included variances for residential and commercial properties, conditional use permits for a pavilion, historic house museum, golf driving range, medical clinic, children's entertainment center, and pawnshop, as well as reviews of several existing conditional use permits. ## Attendance The following individuals and organizations were present at the meeting on March 25, 2011: **Present:** - John Thompson - Linda Thompson - Belinda Doty - C.L. Redmond - Dick Murphy - Craig Harden - Chas Hyde - George Crowley - John Hadlock - Sherry Redmond - Chris Redmond - Catherine Redmond - Seth Tuska - Ray Van Metre - Kelly Van Metre - Derek Vaughan - Rochelle - Lewis - Jay - Mr. Stout - Mr. Hume - Ms. Boland **Organizations represented:** - S&M Pawnshop Inc. - Mission Lexington - Monkey Joes No attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on ten items during this meeting, all decided by voice vote. **Variance V-2011-20** [timestamp: 00:09:41] to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to 25.5 feet for a room addition on 2293 Shannawood Drive in the R-1C zone **passed**. The addition must be constructed in accordance with the submitted application and site plan, and all necessary permits must be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. **Variance V-2011-21** [timestamp: 00:05:14] to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and eliminate part of the landscape buffer for a commercial building at 1260 Winchester Road was **postponed**. **Variance V-2011-22** [timestamp: 00:12:20] to reduce the perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet and alter plantings for a retail shop at 2011 Rainbow Road in the B-1 zone **passed**. The property must be landscaped in accordance with the submitted application and revised site plan, with continuous plantings of at least 3 feet in height along the southwesterly edge of the parking lot and at least one small tree or cluster of shrubs at the easterly end of the front open space. A detailed landscaping plan must be approved by the Division of Building Inspection and implemented prior to obtaining a final occupancy permit. The variance does not pertain to any signage proposed for the property. **Conditional Use Permit CV-2011-18** [timestamp: 00:14:26] to add a pavilion to an existing garden center and reduce the 300-foot setback to 180 feet on 4432 Old Nicholasville Road in the A-U zone **passed**, with the pavilion to be constructed in accordance with the submitted application and site plan. **Conditional Use Permit C-2011-16** [timestamp: 00:16:39] to establish an historic house museum at 147 Old Park Avenue in the R-3/H-1 zone **passed**, with detailed conditions regarding parking management and compliance with the Division of Historic Preservation. **Conditional Use Permit C-2011-17** [timestamp: 00:19:49] to allow continued operation of a golf driving range under new management at 4400/4440 Athens-Boonesboro Road in the A-R zone **passed**, subject to eight conditions including daylight-only operation, a maximum of 40 tee boxes, and restrictions on signage and retail sales. Three conditional use permit reviews **passed**: C-2007-101 for a medical clinic at 1321 Trent Boulevard [timestamp: 00:22:01], C-2009-49 for a children's entertainment center at 1850 Bryant Road [timestamp: 00:22:33], and C-2010-85 for a pawnshop at 285 E. New Circle Road [timestamp: 00:23:43]. **Variance V-2011-23** [timestamp: 01:03:27] to increase the floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 for conversion of a multi-family building into a duplex at 331 Aylesford Place in the R-3/H-1 zone **passed**, with the proposed addition limited to a maximum of 3,708 square feet and the basement restricted to mechanical, storage, or recreational use only. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Mr. Stout** [timestamp: 00:55:34] raised safety concerns regarding the current multi-unit structure. He expressed that the existing building with multiple units poses greater fire safety risks compared to the proposed two-unit configuration. Mr. Stout emphasized that the proposed renovation would improve egress and overall safety for students. **Mr. Hume** [timestamp: 00:59:27] disclosed a personal connection to Craig Harden, owner of Lexington Land Company. He made this disclosure to ensure transparency during the discussion of the variance request. **Mr. Murphy** [timestamp: 01:06:44] provided clarification on two technical matters. He clarified that the 3,708 square feet referenced in the proposal refers to floor area ratio calculation and does not include decks. He also confirmed that the basement will not be used for bedrooms due to egress issues. ## Contested Items **Safety and Unit Configuration for 331 Aylesford Place** A heated discussion arose regarding the proposed two-unit configuration for 331 Aylesford Place and its safety implications compared to the existing multi-unit setup. The central disagreement focused on whether reducing the number of units would improve building safety, particularly regarding egress and fire safety standards. One board member argued that the proposed two-unit configuration would enhance safety by improving egress conditions and fire safety compared to the current multi-unit arrangement. This position conflicted with staff's initial recommendation to postpone action on the matter, suggesting staff had concerns about proceeding with the proposal at that time. The debate reflected differing assessments of how unit configuration directly affects occupant safety and emergency evacuation capabilities. The board member's argument centered on the premise that fewer units would create better emergency access and reduce fire risk, while staff's recommendation to delay indicated reservations about approving the configuration change without further consideration. ## Variance to reduce front setback from 30 feet to 25.5 feet for a room addition on 2293 Shannawood Drive John and Linda Thompson requested a variance to reduce the front setback requirement from 30 feet to 25.5 feet for a room addition at 2293 Shannawood Drive [timestamp: 00:08:33]. The property is located in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone. **Presentation and Rationale** Staff recommended approval of the variance based on several factors: - The proposed reduction would have minimal impact on the surrounding area - Special circumstances existed due to irregular building alignment on the property - The room addition was needed to provide "aging in place" accommodations for the homeowners **Board Action** The Board approved the variance request. The approval included two conditions that the applicants must satisfy. **Case Identifier:** V-2011-20 ## Variance to reduce front setback and eliminate part of landscape buffer for commercial building at 1260 Winchester Road [timestamp: 00:04:43] **Proposal** John L. Foley requested two variances for a commercial building at 1260 Winchester Road located in a B-3 zone. The variances sought to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and to eliminate part of the landscape buffer. **Key Issues and Concerns** Staff raised several concerns about the proposal that led to a recommendation for postponement: - Truck maneuverability issues related to the reduced setback - Potential traffic impact from the proposed changes - Need for more detailed information about the intended use of the commercial building **Outcome** The Board postponed the matter, allowing for additional review and clarification of the concerns raised by staff before proceeding with a decision on the variance request. ## Variance to reduce landscape buffer and alter plantings for retail shop at 2011 Rainbow Road [timestamp: 00:11:18] Belinda Doty requested a variance to modify landscape requirements for a retail shop located at 2011 Rainbow Road in a B-1 zone. The variance sought to reduce the perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet and to alter the plantings for the property. Staff recommended approval of the variance. The recommendation was based on two primary factors: the need to preserve neighborhood character and the existence of special circumstances arising from the property's prior residential use. The Board of Appeals approved the variance request. The approval was granted subject to three conditions that were imposed to ensure compliance with local standards and protect the surrounding area. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## Variance to increase floor area ratio for duplex conversion at 331 Aylesford Place Lexington Land Company LLC requested a variance to increase the floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 for the conversion of a multi-family building into a duplex located at 331 Aylesford Place in a historic district [timestamp: 00:23:43]. **Initial Staff Position** Staff initially recommended postponement of the variance request, citing insufficient information regarding bedroom count and occupancy details needed for proper evaluation. **Presentation and Discussion** Following staff's preliminary recommendation, the applicant provided a detailed presentation to address the concerns raised. Key speakers in the discussion included Dick Murphy, Craig Harden, Mr. Hume, and the Board Chair, along with staff members. **Board Decision** The Board approved the variance request. The approval included five conditions imposed to ensure the project's compliance with applicable regulations and safety standards. These conditions specifically addressed safety requirements and compliance with fire code provisions. **Outcome** The variance to increase the floor area ratio for the duplex conversion at 331 Aylesford Place was approved with conditions. ## Conditional use permit to add pavilion and variance for setback reduction at 4432 Old Nicholasville Road [timestamp: 00:13:21] C.L. Redmond requested a conditional use permit to add a pavilion to an existing garden center located at 4432 Old Nicholasville Road. The request also included a variance to reduce the required 300-foot setback to 180 feet in an A-U zone. Staff recommended approval of both the conditional use permit and the variance. The recommendation was based on findings that the proposed pavilion would have minimal impact on the surrounding area and that special circumstances supported the variance request. The Board approved the conditional use permit and variance with two conditions attached to the approval. ## Conditional use permit for historic house museum at 147 Old Park Avenue [timestamp: 00:15:32] Seth D. Tuska requested a conditional use permit to establish a historic house museum at 147 Old Park Avenue, located in a Planned Neighborhood Residential/Historic District Overlay zone. Staff recommended approval of the permit, citing the public benefit of the proposed museum and the importance of preserving the significant historic structure. The Board found merit in these arguments and voted to approve the conditional use permit. The approval was granted with three conditions attached to the permit. These conditions were designed to ensure the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and historic district requirements. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## Conditional use permit for golf driving range under new management at 4400/4440 Athens-Boonesboro Road **Identifier:** C-2011-17 George P. Crowley requested a conditional use permit to continue operating a golf driving range under new management at 4400/4440 Athens-Boonesboro Road in an A-R zone [timestamp: 00:17:19]. Staff recommended approval of the permit with eight conditions. The Board reviewed the application and considered the staff recommendation along with input from the key speakers, including George Crowley, John Hadlock, and staff representatives. The Board approved the conditional use permit with all eight conditions imposed by staff. The conditions were designed to ensure the golf driving range would operate appropriately within the A-R zoning district while addressing any potential impacts or concerns related to the change in management. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## Review of medical clinic conditional use permit at 1321 Trent Boulevard [timestamp: 00:20:20] The Board reviewed the conditional use permit for Mission Lexington's medical clinic located at 1321 Trent Boulevard. This review examined compliance with the conditions established for the facility's operation. **Permit Conditions** The conditional use permit included specific requirements for the medical clinic's operation: - Parking monitoring requirements - On-site parking use restrictions **Board Review** Staff presented the compliance findings to the Board, with Mr. Chair presiding over the discussion. The Board examined whether Mission Lexington's medical clinic had maintained compliance with all established permit conditions. **Findings and Outcome** The Board found no issues with the clinic's compliance. The facility had met all requirements of the conditional use permit, including the parking monitoring and on-site parking use conditions. The Board approved the review. ## Review of children's entertainment center conditional use permit at 1850 Bryant [timestamp: 00:22:33] The Board reviewed the conditional use permit for Monkey Joes, a children's entertainment center located at 1850 Bryant Road, identified as agenda item C-2009-49. **Key Findings** Staff presented findings confirming that the facility maintains adequate on-site parking and operates in compliance with permit conditions. The Board examined these compliance matters as part of the required permit review process. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit review. ## Review of pawnshop conditional use permit at 285 E. New Circle Road [timestamp: 00:23:43] The Board reviewed the conditional use permit for S&M Pawnshop located at 285 E. New Circle Road, identified as case C-2010-85. **Permit Compliance** Staff presented findings confirming that the pawnshop had complied with the conditions of its conditional use permit. The key compliance items verified included: * Closure of access points * Installation of landscape buffer **Board Action** The Board approved the review of the conditional use permit, finding that S&M Pawnshop had met the required conditions for continued operation under the permit. --- ## Decisions - **V-2011-20** — passed: Variance to reduce front setback from 30 feet to 25.5 feet for a room addition on 2293 Shannawood Drive in R-1C zone - **V-2011-21** — postponed: Postponement of variance request to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and eliminate part of landscape buffer for commercial building at 1260 Winchester Road - **V-2011-22** — passed: Variance to reduce perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet and alter plantings for retail shop at 2011 Rainbow Road in B-1 zone - **CV-2011-18** — passed: Conditional use permit to add a pavilion to an existing garden center and variance to reduce 300-foot setback to 180 feet on 4432 Old Nicholasville Road in A-U zone - **C-2011-16** — passed: Conditional use permit to establish an historic house museum at 147 Old Park Avenue in R-3/H-1 zone - **C-2011-17** — passed: Conditional use permit to allow continued operation of a golf driving range under new management at 4400/4440 Athens-Boonesboro Road in A-R zone - **C-2007-101** — passed: Review of conditional use permit for medical clinic at 1321 Trent Boulevard, confirming compliance with conditions - **C-2009-49** — passed: Review of conditional use permit for children’s entertainment center at 1850 Bryant Road, confirming compliance with conditions - **C-2010-85** — passed: Review of conditional use permit for pawnshop at 285 E. New Circle Road, confirming compliance with conditions - **V-2011-23** — passed: Variance to increase floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 for conversion of multi-family building into a duplex at 331 Aylesford Place in R-3/H-1 zone --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. The End Thank you. Good afternoon. And we're going to start this meeting. In 10, 15 seconds it'll be 1 o'clock, so we'll start it. We're going to ask that all of the individuals who are on the program, who are appealing for relief and things of that nature, if you would please stand, all of you. If you raise your right hand, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Thank you. If you have cell phones in your pocket, purses, shirt pockets, would you please either turn them off or put them on silent. If you have to use your phone, we would ask that you step outside, please. So if you are in opposition to any of the programs that we request that we are here to address today, and if you think you can work this situation out before you come before this board, we would ask that you step outside, both of you, and try to get your differences settled without any fisticuffs and things of that nature. Other than that, we will hear the cases as they come to order relative to the agenda. There are no minutes to be approved at this session, so we don't have that. We will sound this agenda accordingly. Those cases that have objectors, we will move your cases to the back. Those who are here representing with attorneys and we have objectors, you will also be moved to the back. Those that do not and the cases that have been requested or recommended approval by the staff, we will take those cases first providing there are no objectors. So we will sound the agenda starting with number one, V2-11-20, John and Linda Thompson. Is John and Linda Thompson available? Are there any objectors here to this particular case? Thank you. We will call you up a little later. The second case deals with V2011-21, John L. Foley. Now, the staff has recommended postponement. Staff, what do you have on that? We have a letter from the applicant indicating they'd like to postpone for one month. We have a recommendation from the applicant to postpone it for a month. Do I hear a motion to accept that? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. That is moved to April. Number 3, V2011-22, Belinda Doty. Belinda is in the house. Is anyone here in opposition to this appeal? We will call you up shortly. Number four, V2011-23 Lexington Land Company, LLC. The staff is recommending postponement. Staff, what do you have on that? I think Mr. Murphy is here representing them, and I think he wants to proceed with consideration of that. Is there anyone here in opposition to this particular request? are you here representing the Lexington Land Company, I gather? And so you are wanting to hear the case opposite their recommendation, am I correct? Of postponement. And we will hear it as we go later in the program. Thank you. Conditional use appeal CV2011-18, CL Redmond. Mr. Redmond? still Redmond in the house? We'll be here a long time today. I can see that right now. Thank you. Is there any opposition? Anyone here that's in opposition to this particular conditional appeal? Excuse me, please. All right. We'll take you in accordingly. Number C2007-101. Mission Lexington. Anyone here in opposition to Mission Lexington? All right. C2009-49 Ray and Kelly Van Meter dash Monkey Joes. Representative for Monkey Joes in the house. Staff, you hear anything from them? Well the one you just mentioned and then Monkey Joes and then the next one all All three of these are informal reviews. The pawn shop also? Correct. And also the one I just read, right? Mission Lexington, yeah. All right. We'll call those as they come to us. C2011-16 Seth D. Tuska. Mr. Tuska, is there anyone here in opposition to this request? We'll take you accordingly, sir. C-211-17, George P. Crowley. Is it Crowley or Crowley? Crowley. Anyone here in opposition to this particular request? All right, thank you. We will sound these in order. and the first one on the agenda is going to be V2011-20, John and Linda Thompson. Come forward, please. There's also an administrative review at the end of page 5. I think that's when you turn over the page on the back. No findings for approval. Applicant is withdrawn. It's been withdrawn. Thank you. Yes, would you introduce yourself and tell us who? My name is John Thompson. This is my wife, Linda. Hello. And good evening to you. And the staff has reviewed this case and recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, we have. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, we are. Do you understand them? Yes, we are. Are there any questions from the Board regarding this particular appeal? If not, I'll move for a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, on item number V, 2011-20, John and Linda Thompson, I move to grant their appeal for a variance to reduce the required front setback from 30 feet to 25.5 feet for a room addition in a single-family residential zone on property located at 2293 Shanna Wood Drive as recommended by the staff and subject to the following to the two conditions as recommended by staff. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Good evening. Good afternoon rather. Have a good evening too. Next case is V2011-21. That case will be moved. the case where the where the individuals has asked to be to April that case has been voted on and moved to the to April all right next case is going to be this Belinda Doty 2011-22 Belinda Doty come from please Ms. Doty, you are here for an appeal for a variance to reduce the required width of a perimeter landscape buffer from 15 to 10 feet and alter the type of planning required within the buffer in order to establish a retail shop in a neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 2011 Rainbow Road, Council District 10. You tell us who you are, please. I'm Belinda Doty. The staff has recommended Ms. Doty approval subject to three conditions. Have you read these conditions? Yes, I have. You understand? I sure do. And you'll agree to them? Most definitely. Are there any questions by the board, please? Ms. Doty, after you left the Landscape Review Committee, there was a little bit of talk about the sign location. Have you been contacted about that? Yes, Jim contacted us about that. Okay, so you won't be installing a sign until you get a permit for the sign? Exactly. Right. Yeah. We'll wait on that. I think we're going to come back before the board hopefully next month. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? May I have a motion, please? Mr. Chair, I move to approve V-2011-22 Belinda Doty's appeal for a variance to reduce the required width of a perimeter landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet and alter the type of plannings required within that buffer in order to establish a retail shop in Neighborhood Business B1 Zone on property located at 2011 Rainbow Road as recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Do I have a second? Second. Opposed, in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. and you have, are you moving? Yeah, right down Southland Drive. You've got to keep bringing your pantyhams to me, though. I'll keep bringing them to you, Joe. You're the best in town. Good luck to you. Thank you. Thank you. Next case, we're going to pass up on the Lexington Land Company and take that a little later. The next case is CV2011-18CL Redmond. And we don't have anybody in here in opposition to this case, do we? I thought I asked. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent C.L. Redmond. I have three people named C.L. Redmond with me here in the audience today. Mr. Lynn Redmond, this is Catherine Redmond, and Chris Redmond, their son. And the odd person is Chris's wife, Sherry, who is not C.L. Redmond. but the rest are still already welcome the Redmond's and they all operate have you here Redmond's thanks if you all were in here this place be empty yes and they have read the conditions and do agree to them good the staff has recommended approval you have two conditions and do they agree to go by these conditions yes sir they do and why are you here well because I helped them apply for me. All right. You have any questions from the Board? Any questions? If not, I'll hear a motion please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve CV 2011-18 CL Redmond's appeal for a conditional use permit to add a pavilion to an existing garden center and a variance to reduce the required 300 foot setback from a residential structure to 180 feet in an agricultural au zone on property located at 4432 old nicholasville road as recommended by staff and subject to two conditions i'll second all in favor signify by saying aye aye motion passes thank you mr murphy thank you and i was short Thank you. All right. We've got Mr. Tuska is taken care of, I guess. C2011-16, Seth Tuska. Mr. Chair? Yes. I'm a personal friend of the applicant. step out for this one. Well that's probably good for you to do that since you're a friend of his and you probably wouldn't want your vote yet. Thank you Jim. Mr. Tuska's appeals for conditional use permit to establish an historic house museum in a planned neighborhood residential historic district overlay R3 slash 8-1 zone on property located at 147 Oak Park Avenue and Council District 3. The staff has recommended approval and I'm sure there are some conditions if I can turn the page. Subject to three conditions so will you introduce yourself? I'm Seth Teskely. Have you read these conditions sir? Yes sir. Do you agree to go by these conditions and do you understand them? Absolutely. Are there any questions from the staff? Any questions from the board? Not I will hear a motion please. Mr. Chair I move that we approve C 2011-16 Seth D. Tuska's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a an historic house museum in a planned neighborhood residential historic district overlay zone on property located at 147 Old Park Avenue 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. Thank you. Please come visit. Thank you. I'll do that. Thank you. The next case we have is C 2011-17 George P. Crowley. Did I miss one? Did I miss that? No, that's red. You got it, yeah. Mr. Crowley's appeals for conditional use permit to allow continued operation of a golf driving range under new management in an agricultural rural AR zone on property located at 4440 8th and Spoonsboro Road District 12. The staff has recommended approval subject to eight conditions. So tell us who you are, please. I'm George Crowley. I'm John Hadlock John Hadlock. What do you do sir? I own the garden center in front of him and we share the same property He's my brother-in-law. Good. I've been out there several times Thank you for your support. There are eight conditions here and and you do have read and understand Yes, sir Any questions from staff or any questions from this board? And there there there's been no no complaints about this property at all? No, nothing that hasn't been resolved. All right. We don't have any complaints and any problems or concerns. I'll hear a motion, please. I have a question. Oh, you have a question. I think you were in here about... You were back in here. Yeah, I'm back. Oh, okay. You were here before us at the garden center regarding a signage issue, weren't you? Correct. And that's been resolved? Yes, it has. And you understand that if you're planning on changing your advertising, your signage, that you'd need permits. there's I I don't think your signage is a problem now but just with a change of ownership I would think that you might be considering signage changes and you know that that's a permitting process yes okay just the sign and name is going to stay the same though oh good good everybody's familiar with teed up golf after 23 years so I wish you luck there thank you any other questions concerns You ready for a motion? I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2011-17, George Crawley's appeal for a conditional use permit to allow continued operation of a golf driving range under new management in the AR zone on property located at 4400 and 4440 Athens-Boonesboro Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to all eight conditions. Do I have a second? second all in favor signify by saying aye aye okay now staff I'm looking here before we go to the Lexington land company I'm looking here at the 49 85 and 101 the Lexington mission are these cases here that are up for review or what Yeah, each of those cases when they were approved there was a condition adopted by the board that they come back for a review. In all three cases it was an informal review so there wasn't any additional notice to surrounding property owners. It's just kind of to give you all an update mainly from building inspection about how things have been going. So building, do you have any comments you want to make on all three of these while we're They all seem to be, they're in compliance. They're well managed. They receive me in a kind way. So legal, do we need to take any action on these? I think it would probably just be helpful to just make a motion that the review has been, the condition for a review has been satisfied, and it is found that they're in compliance with all conditions. If we don't have any questions from our board, can I get a motion to that effect, please? Rochelle, would you like a motion for each one individually? Unfortunately, we probably should, just so that the minutes will be clear. All right. I'll make a motion for the first one. Can I just so clarify, with respect to all three of these, then, Mr. Hume, there's been no complaint. Everything has been well run. That's correct. Okay. Okay. We'll hear a motion on 101. C-2007-101, Mission, Lexington. I'd move that we accept that this review is satisfied and we found no complaints for the property located at 1321 Trent Boulevard. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. C-2009-49, Ray and Kelly Van Meter slash Monkey Joes. And it has been determined by the building inspection that these are okay. The on-site off-street parking is adequate for the operation of Monkey Joes. Yes, ma'am. Plenty of parking. Have a motion, please. All right, Mr. Chair, I move that this board feels that the conditional review of this conditional use permit has been satisfied and that the applicant is in compliance with all of the conditions placed on it at the time of the approval. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. C 2010-85 S&M Pawn Shop Inc. Mr. Chair I move that the board find that C 2010-85 S&M Pawn Shop has satisfied the requirement that it be reviewed and the review was positive. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. So now we're down to Lexington Land Company Inc. I believe the board had recommended postponement but from the standpoint of a recommendation the request has been made by the attorney representing them that they would desire to hear the case so if you would come forward please and we do understand there's no one here in opposition to this case. So it's on the record. Dick Murphy, Lexington Land Company, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Lexington Land Company. And we're here today. It's sort of an unusual case. Craig Harden is with me, who's the owner of Lexington Land Company. And Chas Hyde, who works with me, is here as well and we're requesting a variance in the floor area ratio of what will theoretically be a duplex in the R3 zone. And circumstances are that Craig bought this building just a couple months ago, I think in December, three months ago, and from a previous owner and the building is not in a good state of repair. If you've been by that you can probably see that. And it needs a great deal of remodeling and reworking. And part of that is especially it needs modern kitchen and bathroom facilities put in the building. And in doing so, Craig has requested and had been approved by the Board of Architectural Review for a slight addition to the back. There is a – and I'll show you a picture of it in a minute. There's an old addition on the back of this property and Craig is going to remove the old addition and put a new addition in its place in the same location. It will be a little bit deeper so it's going to be a little bit larger. The purpose of that is to accommodate the new bathroom and kitchen facilities in this property. As such, he's going to be reducing the number of units in the structure. And right now, it's a little bit difficult to determine how many units were in the structure. We think there were between four and six, probably five units in there. We're going to reduce that to two units. And let me show you, because there's just a couple pictures I wanted to show you here. The first one is the, this is the building, which is at 331 Ellsford Place. Craig purchased that about three months ago. And it's a two-and-a-half-story or three-story building there and has been used for rental purposes for a number of years. It was built in 1908, and looking up the history of that, we could tell in 1934, on the Sanborn maps, which the city has, as you all know, the Sanborn Company mapped cities for insurance companies, and the insurance companies used those maps to determine the fire insurance ratings on them. And in the 1934 version, this was listed as a fraternity house, which is logical because it seems to be designed for a fraternity house. Later on, it was used for a lodging house with as many as, well, like I said, we don't know how many, it has at least 11 or 12 bedrooms in it. and lately it's been rented out and it's reason we have trouble determining the number of units is it's sort of a hodgepodge and as many of these buildings are you can I went through the second and third floor a couple days ago and there are doors which have been removed covered over and there's other places where there had been no doors but they've opened one up and occasionally there's doors where there were numbers on and The numbers have been taken down because somebody put two units together for a while and connected a doorway between them and all that sort of thing on there. But Craig wants to make this into two units. The first floor would be one unit. The second and third floor together would be one unit with eight bedrooms. Right now, we feel it has probably five or six units with at least 11 bedrooms in it. And if you could get the second picture, we'll show you what the Board of Architecture Review has approved. And that is, this is the rear of the property. This is the, you can see the gray and white addition on the back, which will be removed. And there will be a new addition, which is slightly larger than that, which will be put in its place to put some of these modernized facilities in there. Also, on the right side over here, there will be a deck put on, and that will allow an additional entrance point into the second floor on that way. Now, the board has also – this has been to the Board of Architecture Review about three times, and the board has turned down some changes to the third floor on it. So we have been approved for the changes on the first and second floor, and they turned down the changes on the third floor on this one. The last photograph I wanted to show you is the house across the street. And I just wanted to put that up because Craig and his company do own a number of properties in the University area. This is one he owns and has owned for a number of years. And I wanted to put it up to show you that Craig keeps his properties in very good condition. This has a slate roof on it which he has worked hard to preserve on there. but this is one he's owned for a number of years and he keeps his properties in good condition. And I just wanted to put that up to show you he happens to own this one across the street and that's how he maintains his property. Now we're here because of the floor area ratio. And the floor area ratio in the R3 zone, which we're located in, is .5. And what that means is, most of you all know this, but just want to get on the record, this lot has 7,500 square feet. So under a floor area ratio of 0.5, that means you can put a building on the property containing up to 3,750 square feet, half the number of square feet in the lot. You can do that in one floor or four floors as long as your total square footage doesn't go above 3,750 square feet. This property right now is under that. It's about 3,298 square feet, which I think amounts to just under a .44 floor area ratio. and with his addition, which is about a net addition of about 400 square feet, I've got these numbers I'll show you, he's going to be at 0.49 floor area ratio, just under 0.5. And that would be all just fine and we wouldn't have to come to you if we still were keeping three or four or five units in the building because we'd be considered a multifamily building, and the floor area ratio for multifamily buildings in R3 is 0.5. So we wouldn't be coming to you. But because Craig wants to reduce this down to two units, there's a section in the R3 zone that says if you want to build a duplex in the R3 zone, you go by the lot requirements for R2. And in the R2 zone, the floor area ratio for a duplex in the infill area, which we are, is .35. So we're already above the floor area ratio for a duplex in the R3 zone, although we meet it for a multifamily building. Now the irony of this and why this case is so unusual is because there's very few cases where landowners come in to you into you wanting to reduce the number of units in a building like this. And so we talked this over with the law department, and there's a provision in R2 and R1 where you all can grant a variance to the floor area ratio. And we agreed that since we were required to abide by the R2 requirements, we were also entitled to ask you for a variance for the floor area ratio for a duplex in the R3 zone to put it back up to 0.5, which is where it was to start with on here, and which would be if he were going to keep three units in this building or four or five or whatever on here. So here's a little summary of where we are on this. It's a lot size, 7,500 square feet, size of existing buildings, we're not counting the basement, which we can't count, is 3,298 square feet. And that's a floor area ratio of 0.4397. Now we're taking off 168 square feet, and what's replacing it is about 578 square feet, so for a total of about 3,708 square feet, which leaves us with a ratio of 0.4944. And so that's why we're asking for a variance back to the .5, which is the allowed FAR in the R3 zone. And that would, of course, comport if somebody else later on bought this and converted it into three units or whatever. Go back to that anyway. But with the interpretation, the way it is, which we understand, And we don't – Craig's options would be, number one, if he did nothing on this property except to clean it up, fix it up, paint it, and leave it the way it is, he could do that without coming to you and keeping the number of units he has in there. How many units are in it now? Right now we have – like I said, it's hard to tell. We think it's between five and seven units in there, probably five or six. There was even a unit in the basement before, which we will not use. And we had, I'll give you a little chart to show you what was in there before. This is, we've tried to chart this out, and that is, this is the usage of 331 Ellsford Place, right? There was, it was not occupied when he bought it, but there was a unit in the basement with a bathroom and everything. One unit, two bedrooms. First floor, there was one unit and two bedrooms. Second floor, and this is where they got changing things around, there was anywhere between two and four units. There were four bedrooms up there. And it just sort of depended on which doors they kept locked and sometimes they'd cover over a wall and everything. Third floor had one unit, two bedrooms. So we're saying there were between five and seven units and ten bedrooms in there. Mr. Murphy? Yes. How many bathrooms were in the building and how many kitchens? Well, there were a lot of kitchens. It's hard for me to imagine you having a separate unit if it doesn't have a bathroom with it. Well, some of these on the second floor, for instance, there was one set up where they had two bedrooms sharing a bathroom. And they had, well, off the main hallway, you had a lock on either unit. Then you had the bathroom and you had the double lock situation, which I remember from dormitory days. Okay, shared bathrooms. Shared bathrooms on that, yeah. Five bathrooms, he said, on there. And so we had five to seven units and ten bedrooms at least. And what he wants to do, obviously nothing in the basement, one unit in the first floor with three bedrooms, one unit which would be both second and third floor. That's why I don't have anything under the third floor. One unit which would be three bedrooms and two bedrooms for eight bedrooms there. Two units, eight bedrooms on there is what he wants to do on the property. Are there parking requirements for this street? Yes, there would be. I mean, he's got a big parking lot in the back. That should not be an issue on it. And we're actually decreasing the number of units, so that shouldn't be an issue either since we're decreasing the number of units on there. And so anyway, we're here because he wants to reduce the number of units, which kicks us into a different category, subcategory in the zoning ordinance, rather than keep the number of units up. And he feels very strongly that this is the best thing for the building. Obviously, he wouldn't be spending his time and money coming to you. He would have just kept at least three units in the building. then we wouldn't have to come before you and ask for this variance on it. But we thought this was the best solution with the building to come back to you, and he'd like to have – what this variance will do is give him the possibility of making this into two units on it. As I said, the BOAR has approved the exterior changes. we know we have to go through the fire code, life safety codes, and that sort of thing with building inspection. We're fully aware of that, but this is one step in the process. That was my next question. There may be 10 bedrooms in it as it exists today, but if building inspection took a look at that, how much of it is legal at the moment? Well, I think it's probably all legal at the moment because it's all grandfathered in. Do you think there's egress out of the basement, those two bedrooms that you're showing in the basement? Yeah, Craig's telling me the basement probably would not meet any egress requirements. So that gets you down to eight bedrooms as it is now possibly legal, and that's what you'd like to replace it with. Right, right. I want to hear from the staff. I should have probably heard from them first, but because you lost me in ratios up here and you sort of cleared it up a little bit, but I want to hear why the staff has recommended postponement and then I want the engineering over here to talk to us a little bit about this particular situation as well. Well, the main reason we recommended postponement was at the time we had to finalize our staff report, none of this information was available. None of it at all, so. What is your opinion of what you've heard? Well, our main concern initially was even though the number of units might be going down, we wanted to know more about the number of bedrooms and the number of occupants to make a better determination of whether there was going to be a more intense use of this property in terms of number of people. It's a sensitive issue when you're in a rental area with students and all that. So we just wanted to verify the bedroom information. one of the things that kind of struck us with regard to how the two units are laid out is that the five bedrooms in one unit might be an issue. We'll have to discuss. If I could elaborate on that. The restrictions for dwelling units were changed a little over a year ago to now restrict the number of unrelated persons that can live in a dwelling unit. and generally that's four persons unless there is documentation that units have had more than that for a period of time having a unit with five bedrooms is inconsistent with those changes to the definition so that's why really we recommended postponements we could get additional information to suss this type of thing out I don't know if building inspections reviewed this particular property in that light or not but that really explains our recommendation for Okay, before I ask them to comment, if this were considered with a condition relative to the use of it, the individuals that were living in each one of them, how would that relate to the applicant's request? We had not talked about whether there could be a condition on the number of occupants. Ms. Boland might be able to answer that, whether the board could condition this variance with that type of restriction. I can't recall that we have in the past. I'm not sure that means that the Board couldn't. I would be very concerned about doing that because right now our ordinance limits unrelated persons to be considered a family unit to be no more than four and therefore if you put any greater restriction on it, I don't think it would be reasonable. I mean, a family is considered to be four unrelated persons, and to put a restriction on that might apply to people who actually are a family, a couple with three children, would also be problematic. So I don't think beyond what the zoning ordinance already sets, I wouldn't be comfortable in looking to limiting the occupancy. I understand that. Now, building, you have any comments relative to this? Anytime we can improve a building like this, we're all for it. If we can eliminate the basement bedrooms, that's a plus for us. Craig's always worked well with us and understands the billing code and the zoning ordinance pretty well. And I would ask, Mr. Murphy, if you'd come back up, I have a question for you relative to the owner and what his plans are as to who he plans to have occupy this particular dwelling. Well, for this area in general, I mean, having visited the property and just spending a couple hours there the other day, the whole street is a mixture of students and older, what appears to be single people living in apartments through there. And Craig does rent to students, and so certainly students are a strong possibility for living in this building. I mean he doesn't restrict it to students, but obviously this is right near University of Kentucky, so it's an attractive place for students. And Craig is trying to make this building attractive for people, not just students, but any people who might want to live here. So he would rent the eight bedrooms if this was approved out to more than eight people? Well, it's, we'll let Craig answer that. I guess my concern is that I personally don't have a problem with what you're requesting. But I do have a problem if this develops into a commune. Right. That's what I'm concerned about. And I've seen these kind of things happen in other places where you lease or rent out to four and 24 live there. I understand. The market drives me for what's available. It should be no secret that we rent to students. I have for 25 years. One of the things that we've worked hard to do, I've been in the Town and Gown Commission and on the Student Housing Task Force and participated regularly in the community in these activities. And one of the things we're trying to do is control behavior because we're finding we're become, you know, have become more and more responsible for the behavior of other people. And that's one of the reasons that I'm here and spending the money to drive through this, because I'd like to, it's easier for me to control when I get, when I can do a little bit of expansion, get some better bathrooms and kitchens, get a nicer clientele, we have parent signatures and so forth, and we can control who lives there. We, we would typically do no more than one person per bedroom. I wouldn't want to be restricted to that if somebody ever did want to share a bedroom. I think we can do, the code says we can do, and I would refer this to Ms. Boland, up to 16, I think, is in the building code for number of occupants. And then beyond that, you become a boarding house or something like that. That's the fire. I'm sorry, that's the fire code. But we would never go to something like that practically. The most I can ever see we would have, you know, we would want to put one person in a bedroom. These girls come in, they want to set up their canopy beds and, you know. You are saying that you're going to remove that bedroom in the basement, that situation in the basement? Yes, sir. There's actually two in the basement. They do not have the proper fire egress. I'm sure that they were put in in the 40s and when, you know, at that time. It's clear that people live there and they are not, you know, they're gross right now anyway. It's not good access and I just don't see really using it. We can use it for storage or maybe a ping pong table or something. I don't know. And just speaking as one board member, I would ask the staff, as what you've heard right now, what is your opinion, what still is your opinion about this request? I think we have concern with having one dwelling unit with five bedrooms in it. Since it sounds like the occupants will be unrelated, that doesn't seem consistent with our new zoning definition. So that seems to be kind of where we are after hearing this. If I could tell you where we are on that issue, we're here not asking your approval of the number of bedrooms or whatever, because all you're here is voting on is the floor area ratio. Now, whether that's one humongous bedroom or ten bedrooms, the issue before you is still what's the floor area ratio on this property. We know we have to work that out with building inspection, and we know there's a new ordinance on number of family. But it's something we've got to work out with them, irregardless whether you vote us down or up today, and whatever, we've got to work that out with them, and we're fully aware of that. And now the other thing I would point out is we do have a 10-bedroom, probably nonconforming boarding house here, and we are bringing it closer into conformity by doing this. But that's something I would talk to building inspection and the law department about when we go in and actually get the permit, which will determine how many bedrooms and that sort of thing. What we're asking for you today is simply by giving us the variance, you're keeping open the possibility that we could do this as two units instead of having to keep it as three units or four. Mr. Murphy, you say that this is a non-conforming 10-bedroom boarding house, but actually I think it would be an illegal 10-bedroom house of some kind. Those bedrooms in the basement aren't non-conforming. They are illegal. Well, there's two different ways to look at it. One from the zoning way, and that would be were these units put in prior to a zoning ordinance which would prohibit it. Now, we know the house was built before zoning existed, in Lexington. It was a fraternity house before zoning existed in Lexington. The second way, which I think you're hitting on, is whether they are a legal fire code unit or not. And as we said before, we haven't asked anybody for an opinion, but we suspect they are not legal fire conforming units on there. So to make the argument that you're bringing this more into conformity, I think that that's a stretch because those bedrooms would be shut down immediately if they were occupied and enforcement knew about it. Well, from a zoning standpoint, I think that I'm correct. Now, from a fire code standpoint, you may be correct on that, okay? You know. I'd just like to say. Question here with the staff, for the staff, the ratio that they are requesting, What are your opinions relative to that request as a staff? Well, I think we understand Mr. Murphy's legal argument with you and his discussions with the law department. We were hesitant to recommend that variance until we found out this type of information because we did have a concern about the number of bedrooms in each unit. We did converse with Ms. Boland about whether or not there were any non-conformities on the property. and in our thinking there may have been an avenue to for the board to address a change in a non-conforming situation to a less non-conforming situation but from what we understand there weren't any associated with the property so that didn't seem to be a route that we could go with our reporting to you so you're holding true as the recommendation that it should be postponed until is further investigation. Mr. Murphy, I've got a question. If you had, if the plan was to have units on the first, second, and third floor, separate units, so that you would have three units instead of two, do I understand you to say that this would be in compliance with R3 and you wouldn't have to come before us? Is that? Yes. or if we put two on the – another one on the second floor or another one on the first. Yeah, if we somehow came up with three units, we wouldn't have to come before you because we'd have the .5 FAR because we have three or more units. It's just because we're taking a unit away. Right. Which, when we walked in – when Craig walked in to get his building permit, building inspection pointed out this section in the ordinance, and rightfully so, that says that for two-family dwellings in the R3 zone, the lot requirements for R2 will apply. Now, nobody thought of the fact that somebody would ever be reducing one from a multifamily to a two-family. I mean, because zoning ordinance always assumes people want to add density and all that sort of thing. And it was really designed, I think, for somebody who's building a new duplex on a vacant lot in the R3 zone, and we can understand why that applies. But with an existing house, it's sort of like, and I'm not making this legal argument, Mr. Griggs, but it's sort of like changing a nonconforming use. You're making a – the house has got to stay the same, unless we want to tear some of it off, which we can't, or don't want to. That wouldn't be a good thing. But we're putting lesser number of units in the same structure on it, but we're given an existing structure on the property. Well, I'm just, I don't want to think about this so far ahead, but I mean, what if you had decided to make this a three-unit instead of a two-unit? We wouldn't be here. Right. Right? Right. So why make it hard for yourself? I'm just kind of curious. Well, I think it's because, and Craig, I think it's because the flow of the building makes it more logical to have all these in one unit. It's up on the second floor. You have a sort of a central area with bedrooms off of it, and it makes it a lot nicer to have it one unit rather than having to partition something off somewhere. And the stairway to the third floor goes right up out of the middle of the second floor. And you can't cut that off without messing up the whole flow there. Mr. Hume, I think you wanted to say something earlier. Can you remember? Ms. Boland, do you have any? I will say something in support of removing that third-story unit. It would require its own fire escape, if I was correct. Is that right? And if you notice that photo they showed a lot ago, there's a fire escape sticking out the third floor dorm. So they would rid themselves of that, have better exit egress. Anytime you're going through a major renovation like this, you're going to get a lot of life safety items improved on this. He could paint, patch, and repair and move people back in this thing and he wouldn't have a word about it. So on our end of it, it's a great improvement on what he's doing. It improves the fire safety. The occupant loads are not going to be that much different. His parking is not going to be any different. Less than, actually. To me, it's an improvement. So he could load it up with 10 or 12 college students now and you wouldn't have any say in it at all. Or he can control and put 8 or 10 in it or whatever the design works out. and we can move on down the road in a safe manner. I guess that's part of my concern here. In a building, a structure like this, and we are concerned over the ratio factors here, and yet he could open this building up and rent it out as it is, which is the most dangerous, having it with two units or having it with the units that exist right now? I mean, I'm lost here because I think that from a safety standpoint, the two units make more sense than having five or eight units. So where are we here in compromising, hopefully, that we can get this done from a standpoint of what is safety, more safe for the students that are going to be living in this facility? That's to me is what we ought to be thinking about rather than worrying about a ratio of .35 to .50. So you're talking about conditions on approval? Yes. Like approval from housing or safety or fire code and stuff. Yes. If we impose those kinds of conditions, I mean I assume that you'd have to get those approved anyway. They have to do that anyway. So if we just include that as our conditions, that might satisfy. And I'm not sitting here defying your request. Understand me. I'm listening to what they're planning to do with this building, with this structure. And it sounds like that there's going to be students living in this structure. I'd much rather have the students living in a two-compartment structure rather than living in a structure the way it is right now. And when you talk about getting out of this building from the basement or getting out of this building from the rear with as many compartments as he has right now, it doesn't really make any sense to me that we don't go with the two. It just makes no sense to me that we don't. I mean, I'm sorry, but I'm sitting here speaking, and I don't know this gentleman. If it were anybody, I'd say it makes much sense to me to protect these youngsters in a double compartment rather than having them crawling out of the basement or climbing out of the top floor up there. It just makes no sense to me. Maybe I don't know anything about it. I looked at that building and I said, well, it's a nice building. That's all I could understand about it, understanding what you were trying to do. And I just don't see a major issue with this request. I'm sorry. I'm not telling you staff that you haven't done a good job with this. All I'm saying is I think this needs to be looked at from a compromising situation to make it work for what they're trying to do. That's my opinion. And I think it's workable. You know, the building doesn't have a problem with it. They say it's safer with what he's trying to do. I personally am for granting the request, but that's up to this board. I'm just one person. We read around the country all the time where kids all over the country are trapped in situations not only by fire but by weather and can't get in or out. And yet we're trying to make something meaningful and plausible for that to happen and we're saying no to it. Oh, we're recommending no to it. I don't understand that. Just to clarify, we haven't recommended no, Mr. Stout. I think we all agree with a lot of the points you made. You're recommending postponement. We're just trying to digest the information on the fly here. So we're getting there. I think they're working on some findings. I understand. And conditions. I respect where you all sit, and you know I do. I've been here too many years not to. But I just think sometimes we need to look at these things totally, and I know you do, you know, but maybe we don't. And to me this is common sense. I need to, just as a side comment where while law department's working on conditional language, I need to disclose that in addition to knowing Mr. Murphy, well, I don't know the applicant to Lexington Land Company but I know Mr. Hardin from having a representative in, I don't know, 15 years ago maybe, Craig, I'm not sure, a long time ago, just to disclose my potential conflicts. I'm not sure how else to describe it. Thank you. Well, I don't view you to be in conflict here one way or the other. I view you making common sense statements, and to me this is a common sense issue. Is there any, I didn't, I got here a little bit after this had started, is there any opposition to this other than the postponement request? I don't have anybody in opposition. Last to have? Okay. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Chair, after much consideration and talking, I think the Board is ready to make a motion for findings for approval for V 2011-23 Lexington Land Company LLC's appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 for conversion of a multi-family building into a duplex and construction of an addition in a planned neighborhood residential historic district overlay r3-h1 zone on property located at 331 aylesford place council district 3. the conditions for approval are number one construction of the The proposed addition shall limit square footage to a maximum of 3,708 square feet for the entire structure. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction. Number three, occupancy shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, including the current definition of family. building code and all relevant fire code regulations. Number four, any alterations to the structure shall comply with any necessary certificates of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review. And the findings for approval are one, granting this variance will not negatively affect the public health, safety, or welfare nor alter the character of the general vicinity and will not cause a hazard or nuisance to the public because this is an existing structure and the applicant wishes to renovate the building and reduce the number of dwelling units from four to two. Number two, the special circumstances which apply to this property and which do not generally apply to land in the general vicinity or in the same zone are that the applicant is attempting to repair and improve the house, which will be a benefit to the neighborhood, and it would be appropriate to have two units in the building rather than the current four. Number three, strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of its land or create an unnecessary hardship because strict interpretation would require the applicant to either keep three or more units in the building or to close off part of the structure from habitation. Number five, the circumstances of this requested variance are not the result of the applicant's actions since the adoption of the zoning regulation. The house existed and was above the 0.35 floor area ratio when the applicant purchased the house. Did you include this one? Yeah. No, she didn't include that. She took that one out. Yeah, this was... Mr. Murphy, we have... Can I make one? In discussions with building inspection, they wanted clarification on that 3,708 square feet to make sure that did not include things like decks, which does not count for the floor area ratio. So if instead we could say 3,700, 33,000, go ahead. What wording did you want on that to make sure it was clear to you? I just want to make sure the floor area ratio is 3,708, that the square footage of the building with the decks and stuff like that may exceed that. But the floor area ratio is 3708. You said square footage before. Just want to clarify that. The floor area ratio is something like 0.49. But the square footage of the floor area on the ground is 3708. Can we say 3708 with respect to the square footage that counts towards floor area ratio? Well, I just thought the way you were saying it, that the 3708 was the ratio, and it's not the ratio. No, that's the square footage that the applicant presented that he was going to, that it was going to be after the addition. Is that correct? Yes, we're saying that's the square footage, not counting decks, basements, and the stuff that you don't count under the definition anyway, under the ordinance. We just need to add a phrase in there, 3,708 square feet with respect to the calculation of floor area ratio. That way I think it will be clear to the Division of Building Inspection, since we don't have an actual site plan per se, that limits the applicant to what he has presented to the board today. And if I can just clarify one other thing with the board, you had mentioned complying with all zoning ordinances, fire codes and zoning ordinances including definition of family. And I'm assuming that you are not saying we cannot have the five bedrooms in that unit on the second and third floor, but we have to talk to the law department, talk to staff, and work that out with them. I guess my question to you, Mr. Murphy, and to your client, you heard these conditions? You heard the conditions? And you also heard the rationale for approval? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with the conditions? Yes, we are. And you understand that this has to go, you have to work with staff and also with the building inspection prior to this development? Absolutely. Okay. Are there any other questions from staff or any questions from the board? I have a question for Mr. Hume. Do we need to address anything about the basement or is this something that's done with the use of the basement? in this building is this something that we need to condition or is this something that's done through building inspection well it will become evident in building inspection that it's not an occupiable space as far as bedrooms if you want to make a condition that the basement cannot be used other than for mechanical purposes or storage or something like that that's totally up to you but it obviously can't be occupied as a dwelling unit because of egress or the lack thereof. So it's totally up to you. We're aware of the basement not being conforming. And if that's your concern, we can make a note of that. Jay, and I don't think that as long as they can't put bedrooms down there, I wouldn't want to curtail their use of the space for storage or mechanical or a ping pong table. It's usable basement space. That's fine. Sure. We can make a note on that. Do we have any other questions? Any other comments? If not, I'm ready for a motion, Well, I made the motion. You already made the motion. Do I have a second? Any questions? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Is there anything else on our agenda today that we need to address staff? There are no staff items today, Mr. Chairman. Say that again. Lewis? Say that again. We have no staff items today. Thank you. Lewis, we were in the middle of a conversation about limiting testimony. I don't know if we want to finish that up today or not. That's fine with me if you want to discuss that. That's something with board and staff, isn't it? You want to? Well, I think we were going to have a report or at least some additional information from Rochelle about how to word change in our bylaws But if she's not ready, maybe we'll do this next month. I guess not seeing it on the agenda I had forgotten and I think that we were going to work with planning staff and give you excerpts from other Bylaws and provisions and I apologize I will try to get that out to you before your next meeting so you can review it ahead of time And we'll be glad we're gonna be fine I'm sure this time mr. Sally will keep me in line and see that I handle it. That will be fine Do I have a motion to adjourn? Do I have a motion to adjourn? so moved second All in favor aye Thank you. Have a good day Music