# Board of Adjustment Meeting - June 24, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 24, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2118 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2118?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-06-24 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 7,165 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 June 24, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mr. Chairman presiding. The board considered 11 agenda items, taking 9 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing 3 public comments. Of the items presented, 8 were approved, 1 was postponed, and 1 was withdrawn. The approved items included five setback variance requests from Castine Properties, Lynn Pedigo, RML Construction, and Mike Kerwin Homes, as well as a wall height variance for Rich Nordling/CY of Lexington, Inc. The board also approved conditional use and variance requests for Shiloh Baptist Church's parking lot, SRG Properties' drive-through facility, and Fellowship Church of Lexington's use of an existing building for church purposes. Additionally, the board approved an administrative review and variances for East Hickman Baptist Church. The Stephen Howard special event facility conditional use request was postponed, and the Jacqueline Allen home occupation administrative review was withdrawn from consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 24, 2011: * Jeff Duncan * David Thompson * Lynn Pettigo * Rich Nordling * Rory Kaley * Robert Jones * Nick Nicholson * David Barber * Mike Buffen * Robert Baldwin * Charles Edwards-Challa * Rachel Carpenter * Charles Carpenter No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine votes on variances, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews. All votes passed by voice vote. **V-2011-38** [0:20:28]: Approval of variance to reduce setback from 60 feet to 56 feet for overhead door in Light Industrial (I-1) zone at 981 Contract Street. The storage building must be constructed per the submitted application and site plan, with all necessary permits obtained from the Division of Building Inspection. The Division of Traffic Engineering must review and approve the final design of the parking layout and circulation. A 7-foot tall berm/retaining wall and tree plantings along the rear property line must provide a full perimeter landscape buffer complying with Article 18-3(a)(1)3 of the Zoning Ordinance, with a minimum of six trees planted at approximately 25-foot intervals along the rear property line. **V-2011-39** [0:22:08]: Approval of variance to reduce rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for garage addition in Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 1182 Indian Mound Road. The addition must be constructed per the submitted application and site plan with all necessary permits from the Division of Building Inspection. **V-2011-40** [0:24:17]: Approval of variance to increase wall height from 8 feet to 9 feet in Highway Service Business (B-3) zone at 3100 Wall Street. The retaining wall must be constructed per the submitted application and site plan, with all necessary permits obtained and required landscaping materials installed per Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. **V-2011-41** [0:25:48]: Approval of variance to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for off-street parking in Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone at 4161 Victoria Way. The property must be developed per the submitted application and site plan, with a full landscape buffer provided for all parking spaces along Victoria Way frontage and a note reflecting the Board's action placed on the Final Development Plan. **V-2011-42** [0:28:29]: Approval of variance to reduce side setback from 8 feet to 3.5 feet for home addition in Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 256 Shady Lane. The addition must include augmented landscaping along the 32-foot section closest to the side property line, with planting details subject to Division of Building Inspection approval. **CV-2011-35** [0:30:17]: Approval of conditional use permit for drive-through facility and variances to eliminate landscape screening in Professional Office (P-1) zone at 858 Malabu Drive. Conditions include Division of Traffic Engineering review, storm water management compliance, tree preservation along Tates Creek, and planting of five additional American sycamore trees between the retaining wall and Tates Creek Road. **C-2011-33** [0:32:56]: Approval of conditional use permit for church in existing building in Highway Service Business (B-3) zone at 2551 Richmond Road. An occupancy permit must be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to beginning church activities. **ACV-2011-37** [0:33:58]: Approval of administrative review for East Hickman Baptist Church to construct 2,400 square foot multi-purpose building and variances to reduce rear and side setbacks in Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone at 6418 Tates Creek Road. A storm water management plan and sewage disposal compliance with Fayette County Health Department requirements are required. **CV-2011-34** [0:55:46]: Approval of conditional use permit for additional parking lot and variance to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 10 feet in Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone at 227 & 233 East Fifth Street. The revised site plan must eliminate at least three parking spaces closest to East Fifth Street, with all spaces maintaining a minimum 10-foot setback. Parking must be paved, landscaped per Articles 16 and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, and include shoebox-style pole lighting with downward-directed shields. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the meeting regarding parking lot and development plans. **Rachel Carpenter** [timestamp: 0:35:02] raised objections to the Shiloh Baptist Church parking lot expansion. Concerns included increased water runoff, loss of green space, and the visual impact of cars adjacent to sidewalks. She noted a lack of prior communication with the neighborhood association and requested that the project include a 10-foot setback and landscape buffer. **Robert Baldwin** [timestamp: 0:48:03] spoke in support of the Shiloh Baptist Church expansion. The applicant acknowledged the community's concerns about water runoff and visual impact, and confirmed that the proposed 10-foot setback and landscaping buffer would address these issues. **Charles Edwards-Challa** [timestamp: 0:52:57] discussed future plans for a Lifeway Center to be built on the same property. The applicant noted that this development would require additional parking and emphasized the importance of keeping the current parking lot confined to existing property lines. ## Appointments Jimmy Griggs was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment. ## Contested Items **Shiloh Baptist Church Parking Lot Expansion** The proposed expansion of the Shiloh Baptist Church parking lot generated community opposition during the meeting. Neighbors raised three primary concerns about the project: water runoff from the expanded lot, the visual impact on the surrounding area, and the lack of prior communication with residents before the proposal was presented. The Board addressed these concerns by implementing specific requirements for the project. The expansion was approved contingent upon a 10-foot setback from the property line and the installation of a landscape buffer. These modifications satisfied the objecting neighbors, resolving the dispute and allowing the project to move forward. ## Castine Properties – Variance to reduce setback from 60 to 56 feet **Identifier:** V-2011-38 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request from Castine Properties to reduce the required setback from 60 to 56 feet for an overhead door in a Light Industrial zone. [timestamp: 0:13:21] **Presentation and Arguments** Key speakers Jeff Duncan and David Thompson presented the application. The applicant argued that alternative door configurations would create significant practical and financial obstacles. Specifically, flipping the door layout to comply with the standard 60-foot setback requirement would increase construction costs and necessitate disruption to existing plumbing and electrical systems. **Board Decision** The Board approved the variance request. The approval was based on the staff recommendation and included five conditions that the applicant must satisfy. ## Lynn Pedigo – Variance to reduce rear setback from 10 to 5 feet **Case Number:** V-2011-39 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request from Lynn Pedigo to reduce the rear setback requirement from 10 feet to 5 feet for a garage addition in a Single Family Residential zone [timestamp: 0:21:37]. **Request and Justification** The applicant sought permission to construct a garage addition that would not meet the standard rear setback requirement. Pedigo cited the existing garage location as a special circumstance supporting the variance request. **Board Action** The Board approved the variance, accepting the staff recommendation. The approval included two conditions that the applicant must satisfy. ## Rich Nordling / CY of Lexington, Inc. – Variance to increase wall height to 9 feet **Case Number:** V-2011-40 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request to increase the retaining wall height from 8 to 9 feet in a Highway Service Business zone [timestamp: 0:23:10]. Rich Nordling and Rory Kaley presented the application on behalf of CY of Lexington, Inc. **Presentation** The applicant cited topographic challenges as the primary justification for the height increase. Additionally, the request was supported by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance requirements that necessitated the additional wall height. **Board Action** The Board accepted the staff recommendation and approved the variance. The approval included three conditions that the applicant must satisfy. ## RML Construction – Variance to reduce front setback from 20 to 5 feet [timestamp: 0:25:48] The Board considered a variance request (V-2011-41) from RML Construction to reduce the front setback from 20 to 5 feet for off-street parking in a Planned Neighborhood Residential zone. Rory Kaley presented the application on behalf of the applicant. The request cited two primary justifications: the shape of the property and traffic concerns related to the proposed parking configuration. The Board accepted the staff recommendation and approved the variance. The approval was granted subject to four conditions that the applicant must satisfy. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## Mike Kerwin Homes – Variance to reduce side setback from 8 to 3.5 feet **Case Number:** V-2011-42 **Request:** The Board considered a variance to reduce the side setback requirement from 8 feet to 3.5 feet for a home addition in a Single Family Residential zone. **Discussion:** Robert Jones presented the variance request to the Board [timestamp: 0:26:50]. A letter of opposition was received regarding the proposal. **Outcome:** The Board approved the variance. The approval was based on staff recommendation and included three conditions for the project. ## Shiloh Baptist Church – Conditional use and variance for parking lot [timestamp: 0:35:02] The Board considered a conditional use permit and variance request for Shiloh Baptist Church to construct an additional parking lot. The applicant sought approval for a variance to reduce the front setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet. **Key Speakers and Presentations** Robert Baldwin, Charles Edwards-Challa, and Rachel Carpenter participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Concerns Raised** Objectors to the proposal raised several concerns: - Water runoff impacts from the parking lot - Visual impact of the parking lot on the surrounding area - Lack of communication from the church with neighboring properties or the community **Board Decision** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the additional parking lot and granted the variance to reduce the front setback to 10 feet. The approval was contingent on six conditions, including: - A 10-foot setback requirement - A landscaping buffer The Board accepted the staff recommendation in approving this request. ## SRG Properties – Conditional use and variances for drive-through **Case Number:** CV-2011-35 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use permit and variances for SRG Properties to construct a drive-through facility in a Professional Office zone. [timestamp: 0:29:12] **Proposal Details** The applicant requested approval for a drive-through facility and variances to eliminate landscape screening requirements in the Professional Office zone. The applicant, represented by Nick Nicholson, cited site constraints and traffic flow considerations as justification for the requested variances. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit and variances, accepting the staff recommendation. The approval was granted subject to nine conditions imposed by the Board to address planning and operational concerns. ## Fellowship Church of Lexington – Conditional use for church in existing building **Case Number:** C-2011-33 **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use permit application for Fellowship Church of Lexington to operate a church in an existing office suite located in a Highway Service Business zone. [timestamp: 0:31:22] **Presentation and Discussion** David Barber presented the application to the Board. The applicant clarified that the church would utilize existing office space for its operations, rather than requiring new construction or significant modifications to the building. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit, accepting the staff recommendation. The approval included two conditions that the applicant must satisfy. **Outcome** The conditional use permit was approved for Fellowship Church of Lexington to operate in the existing building. ## East Hickman Baptist Church – Administrative review and variances **Case Number:** ACV-2011-37 **Outcome:** Approved The Board reviewed an administrative review and variance request for East Hickman Baptist Church [timestamp: 0:33:26]. The application sought approval for a 2,400 square foot multi-purpose building and variances to reduce rear and side setbacks on property located in an Agricultural Rural zone. **Presentation** Mike Buffen presented the case to the Board. The applicant cited historical use of the site and site constraints as justification for the requested variances to setback requirements. **Board Action** The Board approved the administrative review and granted the requested variances. The approval was based on acceptance of the staff recommendation and included four conditions that the applicant must satisfy. ## Stephen Howard – Conditional use for special event facility **Case Number:** C-2011-29 **Applicant:** Steven Howard **Request:** Conditional use for a special event facility **Location:** Farm winery **Outcome:** Postponed [timestamp: 0:07:11] The Board considered a conditional use application from Steven Howard for a special event facility at a farm winery. The application was postponed due to insufficient project revisions and the need for additional review before the Board could proceed with consideration. The Board advised the applicant to meet with staff to revise the proposal. No further details regarding specific concerns or required modifications were documented in the available materials. ## Jacqueline Allen – Administrative review for home occupation [timestamp: 08:57] The Board considered an administrative review for a home occupation permit requested by Jacqueline Allen (AC-2011-36). **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended disapproval of the conditional use portion of the application due to proposed external alterations to the dwelling. **Outcome** The Board accepted the withdrawal of the appeal. Jacqueline Allen withdrew her application for the home occupation permit. --- ## Decisions - **V-2011-38** — passed: Approval of variance to reduce setback from 60 feet to 56 feet for overhead door in Light Industrial (I-1) zone at 981 Contract Street - **V-2011-39** — passed: Approval of variance to reduce rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for garage addition in Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 1182 Indian Mound Road - **V-2011-40** — passed: Approval of variance to increase wall height from 8 feet to 9 feet in Highway Service Business (B-3) zone at 3100 Wall Street - **V-2011-41** — passed: Approval of variance to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for off-street parking in Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone at 4161 Victoria Way - **V-2011-42** — passed: Approval of variance to reduce side setback from 8 feet to 3.5 feet for home addition in Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 256 Shady Lane - **CV-2011-35** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for drive-through facility and variances to eliminate landscape screening in Professional Office (P-1) zone at 858 Malabu Drive - **C-2011-33** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for church in existing building in Highway Service Business (B-3) zone at 2551 Richmond Road - **ACV-2011-37** — passed: Approval of administrative review for East Hickman Baptist Church to construct 2,400 sq ft multi-purpose building and variances to reduce rear and side setbacks in Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone at 6418 Tates Creek Road - **CV-2011-34** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for additional parking lot and variance to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 10 feet in Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone at 227 & 233 East Fifth Street --- ## Full transcript Thank you. a motion is that all right with staff absolutely mr. chairman so what's your pleasure okay then we will hold these over till July we would ask that all of those who plan to speak or testify this evening on behalf of your your the cases that are being presented if you would please stand and raise your right hand please do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you have a seat now any case that we have today that is going to require or where the staff has made a recommendation of non-approval we'll be moving that case to the end. Any cases here that are going to be contested by neighbors or business neighbors or residential neighbors today if they are here we would ask that before your case become comes to us that you step outside and talk to those that are complaining or that has agreements against the case that they're here to speak against you might step outside and speak with the individual that is applying for this case to maybe solve the issue, quietly solve the issue. We don't mean to go out and box and then come back in and the winner wins, but if you feel like that is necessary. Also we ask that all cell phones be put on silent or turned off please. If you have to use your phone we would ask that you step outside so that you won't be interrupted or your case won't be interrupted or the people speaking will not be interrupted. So we will take these cases as they are listed and number one case is V2011-38 Castine Properties of Election 2 LLC. Is there anyone here who is in opposition to this particular case? Anyone here in opposition? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think we have at least one request for a postponement and I've got one withdrawal I can fill you in on. Well then before we do these we will ask for those postponements. All postponements, cases please. Excuse me, I overlooked that. Come forth please. Give your name and the case please. Yes board, my My name is Steven Howard. I am here for case number… Castine Properties? No, sir. No? All right. Page 6, item 3, C-2011-29. Page 6. All right. Steven Howard? Yes, before I request a postponement, I'd just like, Mr. Murphy represents me and I received a phone call from him today and he's had a violent act against him and asked me to come and request this postponement. Someone broke into his house and actually caught it on fire. So if we could all just keep him in our thoughts, I know you see him from time to time. I would just like to request a postponement for a two-month extension. So you want this case heard in August? Yes. On behalf of Knox Van Noggle, who will not be here in July and ask for an extended month, I granted that. If you would, please, sir. Do I hear any questions or motions to accept? Motion to accept. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. It's postponed to August, sir. Thank you. Any other postponements? or withdrawals. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, we had one withdrawal. It's the last case on page 7. Jacqueline Allen, AC 2011-36. We got a letter of withdrawal for that case. So case AC 2011-36, Jacqueline Allen, has been withdrawn. Are there any other cases? that want to be postponed or not then we will sound the cases. V-2-11-38 Casting Properties Lexington 2. Are the felons here please? Is anyone here in opposition to the Casting Properties request? No opposition. who will take you shortly number two V dash two zero eleven dash three nine Lynn Pettigo is Lynn Pettigo here is there anyone in here in opposition to the appeal Lynn Pettigo no opposition V-211-40, Rich Norling, CY of Lexington, Inc. Is anyone here in opposition to this particular case? No opposition. V-211-41, RLM Construction. RLM Construction, are you in the house? RLM Construction, are you here? We will hold that case in case they walk. You haven't heard anything from me, have you, staff? Okay, then we'll hold. V211-42, Mike Kerwin Holmes. Is anyone here in opposition to the appeals of Mike Kerwin Holmes? No opposition. The next case we're looking at, as soon as I get to it, V, CV 211-34, Shiloh Baptist Church. Is there anyone here in opposition to, this case has to oppose? We'll take that move toward the last. CV 211-35, SRG Properties. Is there anyone here in opposition to SRG Properties? Anyone in opposition? No opposition. C-211-33, Fellowship Christian Church of Lexington. Is there anyone here in opposition to Fellowship Christian Church of Lexington? No opposition. ACV 2011-37 East Hickman Baptist Church. Anyone here in opposition? East Hickman Baptist Church. And Jacqueline Allen has been withdrawn. And before we get started Staff, do you have anything you want to present to any of these cases thus far? I'm sorry, any of you? Do you have anything you want to present relative to anything we're getting ready to get into here? Okay. We're ready. Castine Properties. Appeals for a variance to reduce the already reduced setback from a residential zone for an overhead door 60 feet to 56 feet in a light industrial I1 zone on property located at 981 Contract Street Council District 1. Would you come forward please? Come forward and give your names if you don't mind. Jeff Duncan and David Thompson say that again David Thompson David Thompson now the staff has recommended approval but they have listed five conditions have you read and do you understand the conditions yes sir you have any concerns with the conditions no sir any questions or Concerns from the board. I have one. What would be the objection to just reversing the doors, the pedestrian door and the overhead door on that last unit so that the overhead door moves closer to Contract Street? That would change the design and it would cost the owner more money. The reason being the wall, I don't know how to explain this, but the wall that has all electrical on it is on the opposite side what you would have to do is flip that over which means longer service to that one unit and that's it would change the whole layout to how the bathrooms are set the electrical is set because the electrical is only on one wall well it's an odd number of units so the first unit up there next to contract Street is by itself so if you just you know put the pairs all the way down after the first unit you wouldn't have that longer run I don't think. But then if you switch it that way you have problems with plumbing because your plumbing your bathroom is on an outside wall which therefore makes your you'd have to set your plumbing within your foundation in your concrete if it ever had to be replaced you'd have to tear your foundation apart and that's not a very viable idea. Oh yeah it's been thought it's just It's been redrawn I don't know how many times, but I see your point. It's just construction, how it would be built, would prohibit that. You can build anything. It just would change it for the future. If you ever had any plumbing problems, switching it your way, like I said, you really don't want to tear out your foundation. Well, I guess I'm not following you because it seems like if you've got an odd unit at the front, You could have an odd unit at the back just as easily. It's all in – yes, sir, I see your point. If I could – if we had those drawings, I could show you by flipping it. When you flip it the other way, you are putting more – your electrical run for your main power is – you add 30 more feet. That's cost. You change your bathrooms, like we said before, to an inch from the way they are now, which is on the outside wall of that unit. Oh, okay. What you're saying is flip this to here and essentially move all these down so that... that put the bathrooms on this common wall put the bathrooms on this common wall put the bathrooms on this common wall correct I really haven't figured out the details I'm just saying with seven units you could flip one so that the pedestrian doors on the outside and you wouldn't need to have this variance at all they're in pairs I recognize that yes but it's it's still it's by moving this common wall here is where all your electrical is what you're saying by flipping them and putting the odd one then all your electrical is on that wall in your your man door you're saying would be on the outs closest to the last unit Sure. By doing all that, it adds more cost to all these units here. That's basically it. I think it would add, if you said 30 feet of electrical run, I'm just not inclined to give a variance to save somebody 30 feet of electrical run. And plumbing and everything else. Yeah. It just pushes us up and as we all know right now, cost is everything for developers and owners. But basically what happens is that the reason why this thing is all coming to fruition is that when it was originally designed, it was being built by a different type of construction system, which is ICFs, which is insulated concrete forms, something new to Lexington. They don't do that here. What we found out we thought would save money, it didn't. Therefore, we went to a pre-engineered building. The building grew four feet, and that's why all this has come about. It's just a change in construction. I see your point, but it does add more money. To you, it might say, what's 30 feet? But 30 feet of major, you're not talking little cable, you're talking major power cable. You're adding more plumbing, you know, in length. So it all adds up. Well, I was thinking about the additional distance to the residential neighbors across the back property line. That's where my concern lies. Oh, yeah. That's our concern, too, because we try to be very good neighbors to all these people over there. They're great people. And we enjoy them. In fact, one celebrated when they found out about the property because they know how we treat everybody. Well, thank you for your argument. Does this particular project create a hazard or discomfort for the people living there or for the people that are neighbors? No, sir. This is really kind of an unusual situation because a lot of times with industrial and residential, they seem to not get along. But with this industrial area, the whole area, all the owners pay for the neighborhood associations, newsletters, everything. It's – they all, like David was saying, who is an owner of this property and another piece down the road, they all get along and because they keep up their properties, it makes the neighborhood real happy. Are there any other concerns? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I'll move that the 2011-38 Casting Properties Lexington 2 LLC appeals for variance to reduce the already reduced setback from residential zone for an overhead door from 60 feet to 56 feet in a light industrial zone on a property located at 981 Contract Street be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. thank you thank you for your time um i heard enough yeses i'm gonna ask for hands next Next case is V2011-39 Lynn Pettigo. Will you give us your name, please? Lynn Pettigo. Ms. Pettigo, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read and understand the conditions? Yes, I have. Do you have any concerns, negative or positive, about the condition? Do you agree to them? I agree. Any comments, please, from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V-2011-39 Lynn Pedego appeals for a variance to reduce the required rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a garage addition and a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1182 Indian Mound Road as approved as set forth by the staff and subject to two conditions. May I have a second? I'll second. All in favor, please signify by raising your hand, please. Thank you. Motion passed. Thank you. V2011-40, Rich Nording, CY of Lexington, the Inc. appeals for our variance to increase the allowable height of a wall and the required rear yard from 8 feet to 10 feet in a highway service business B3 zone on property located at 3100 Wall Street, Council District 10. Don't be afraid, gentlemen. Come on up. Give your names, please. Rich Nordling. I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you read and understand the conditions? Do you agree with the conditions? Yes. Do you agree to abide by the conditions? Yes. Any questions from the board, please, or comments? If not, I'll hear a motion. I just want to clarify that the applicant is agreeable to the height variance of 9 feet. Yes, and actually if you look at the site drawing that you received, it should say between 8 and 9 feet. There was no wall that was 10 feet. Any other comments? Is there going to be a fence at the top of this? Yes. Thank you. Any other comments? I'm not out here. Motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move that V-2011-40 Rich Nordling CY of Lexington Inc.'s appeal for a variance to increase the allowable height of a wall in the required rear yard from 8 feet to 10 feet in a highway service business B-3 zone and property located at 3100 Wall Street Council district 10 be approved at 10 at 9 feet as recommended by the staff for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to conditions recommended by the staff I have a second I second all in favor signify by raise your hand please thank you motion passes Does anyone hear from RML Construction? Was he here before? No. Come forth, sir. Anyone in opposition to RML Construction before he comes up? All right. You can name again. Rory Kaley with the EA Partners. Mr. Kettering, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you read and do you understand those conditions? Yes. Will you abide by the conditions? Yes. Are there any questions from the board regarding this particular appeal? Any concerns? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that we approve V2011-41 RML's constructions appeal for a variance to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for additional off-street parking spaces in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 4161 Victoria Way based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying yay. Yay. Those that are not in favor say nay. Thank you. Good luck. V2011-42 Mike Kerwin Holmes. Appeals for advantage to reduce the required side setback from 8 feet to 3.5 feet for a home addition to a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 256 Shady Lane, Council District 4. Who do we have here, please? Robert Jones with Mike Kerwin. Welcome, Mr. Jones. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you read and do you understand and will you abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, we have a letter in opposition. We have one letter here in opposition. from nearby neighbors who for obvious reason wish to remain anonymous I don't like reading those kind of things but you may read it you're gonna complain you need to let us know who you are That's crazy. Just give us a minute here. Thank you, Stan. Are there any questions or concerns? If not, I'll hear a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that item V201142 Mike Kerwin Holmes appeals for a variance to reduce the required side setback from 8 feet to 3.5 feet for a home addition and single family residential R1C zone on property located at 256 Shady Lane be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying yea. Yea. All opposed nay. passes. Thank you all. Let's see here. Shiloh is not next. No opposition. CV 211-35 SRG properties SRG properties please give us your name good afternoon Nick Nicholson with Stalkine and Ogden here on behalf of SRG properties we have reviewed the staff report we are in complete agreements with any of the conditions that have been placed on there you know this routine pretty good I've gotten it down hey down huh well the staff has recommended five conditions that they also recommended approval you have read them and you do agree to abide by them yes your honor or yes your honor excuse me your honor as well I've been called a lot of things whatever you are all right do we have any questions and comments from board if not I'll hear a motion please Mr. Chair, I move to approve CV 2011-35 SRG properties appeal for a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility in a professional P1 zone and variances to eliminate the required zone-to-zone landscape screening along the western property line perimeter, landscape screening adjacent to New Circle Road on Ramp and vehicular use area, screening along the eastern side of the property on a portion of 858 Malibu Drive in Council District 4 as recommended by staff and subject to the six conditions outlined by staff. Oh, nine conditions. Excuse me, there are nine conditions. Do I have a second, please? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposition? Thank you, sir. Thank you. C2011-33, Fellowship Christian Church of Lexington. Yes, sir. David Barber from Fellowship Church, pastor. Welcome in, David. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read and do you understand? Will you abide? I have read. We'll abide to it. you i'd like one clarification if i can yes sir um the statement says that um the occupancy permit is obtained from the division of building inspection prior to the beginning of church activities um the space is currently uh office spaces and my office is in there currently i put it in there can i use that or am i waiting for that before is that a church activity and the other question would be would be bible studies that we have in the week that's up to building and to staff to determine that we would prefer uh to go in before you hold your bible study Obviously, I don't mind if you have your office, but if you're going to have a group of people in there, we want a first shot at it. Okay. That's great. So do we need to add to that condition? Mr. Chairman, our concern just was that he already had an occupancy permit, and it sounds like he's going to continue to use it in that fashion. I think that the board is covered with the two conditions, but... You're satisfied with the two conditions? Anyone on the board dissatisfied with that? Any questions or concerns regarding this particular appeal? If not, I will hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2011-33 Fellowship Church of Lexington's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a church in one suite of an existing building in a highway service business B-3 zone on property located at 2551 Richmond Road, Council District 7, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying yay. Yay. Any nays? Motion passes, sir. Thank you. Good luck to you. ACV 2011-37, East Hickman Baptist Church. Good afternoon. Mike Buffen, Chairman of Trustees. Mike, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you read and you understand and will you abide by those conditions? Yes, we will. Are there any questions or concerns from staff or building or from this board regarding the case? If not, I will hear a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that ACV 2011-37 East Hickman Baptist Church appeals for administrative review to determine that the proposed 2400 square foot multi-purpose building does not violate the 10,000 square foot limit for church facilities, a conditional use permit to construct the addition and variances to reduce the required rear and side setbacks from 25 to 16 feet and an agriculture rural zone on property located at 6418 Tates Creek Road be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying yay. Yay. Motion passes. Thank you. I think that brings us to Shiloh. Shiloh Baptist Church. I want you all to introduce yourselves and then we're going to listen to the opposition first, okay? I'm Robert Baldwin. I'm a civil engineer. Charles Edwards-Challa. Alright, if you all would just have a seat right there, we will bring up the opposition. Were you all not able to go outside and talk this out? I have emails from other people and so I don't – I'm kind of the spokesperson. I don't – my name is Rachel Carpenter. I'm Charles Carpenter. And I have also more emails. I don't know what I – So tell us where you live in conjunction with this particular case, please. I live on Silver Maple Way. It's about – it's directly – it tees, the parking lot tees with our road. So as soon as you leave our street, it goes straight into the parking lot, across – Shiloh's parking lot, their current parking lot. I guess my question to you would be, if it's already – as you have just mentioned, what would the extension cause you? well what we're wondering there if you look at the vicinity map there Shiloh owns all of the land around that field that you see Shiloh owns all of that land and so what we're wondering is why why not go back instead of coming forward you can actually see our house right there you got a corner let her have a corner so she can point to what she's talking about please so all of this land is owned actually i believe it goes all the way back to is owned by shiloh the parking lot that they're proposing goes along right here um and what we're wondering is instead of coming forward and encroaching on what is right now a very walkable space, and you'll see the houses on this side, they have their 20-foot setback, why not just go back 5, 10, 20 feet instead of coming forward? Again, if there are other uses that are planned for this land, And that was – then I guess we'd like to know what the plan is. And then, you know, but if not, then I guess that was the wonder. Why not just go back? Another thought is right now when it rains, there is quite a lot of water that just runs off this very small parking lot that's right here right now. It just, you know, it pours off of it. if this is expanded um there will be much more water runoff especially if there's not a you know a landscaping buffer um along the edge isn't there a drain that runs down that street line there that would catch the water i believe it's all the way down here and when it rains really bad it comes across that street and goes all the way our our drain doesn't drain until it gets way down here and it pools there's a large pool of water when it rains heavily we have all the storm water issues that the city is dealing with right now our neighborhood association is trying to build rain gardens in our area to help people deal with the water runoff a lot of people in our area use sump pumps to pump out water after a rain you can see water pouring out of pipes coming out of people's basements show me where you live in conjunction to i live right in this house right here. Or is that? Okay. Some of the other issues that were brought up by other people in our neighborhood were the, you know, the – if the variance is allowed or the – if the spacing is allowed to come forward, it'll be, as you can see, when the church is in session, people park along this street. And I believe even with this parking lot, they still will. And we are glad for more parking. Don't get us wrong, because right now, you know, on Sundays, we know that if we leave and we come back around noon, we don't have parking. and I've talked to many neighbors and they say well we're glad that they're building more parking because it definitely is needed what we're worried about is the feeling of being walled in by cars as you walk along here you'll have cars right next to you on this side there will obviously be cars right next to you on here and it just it's not a pleasant look Another point that some of my neighbors have brought up is that the parking lot isn't used very often. So when they're not in session, this will just be an expanse of asphalt. salt. And so what we'd like is to have as much greenery as possible and buffering of the heat, of the, you know, the experience of walking along here. Our neighborhood is a very walkable neighborhood. Many people do walk, whether by choice or by necessity. It is a very heavily walked neighborhood. And so we hope to keep that experience. Another point that was brought up was the conditional use of a parking lot. And I'm not totally up on the lingo of what a conditional use is, but I'm thinking that means it's temporary. Otherwise, you would change the zoning or it's not. So I guess I would just like to know what conditional use means. Because if, does anyone have a? That means that within this particular zone, as many other zones in the county, there are certain uses that are called conditional uses, which means they're allowable, but subject to review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. It's not really a temporary thing. In some cases it might be, but it can be permanent as well. In this case, it's permanent. That was our thought. Once it becomes a parking lot, it will never – very rarely do parking lots not become not parking lots anymore. So that was one thought on that that someone brought up. Many people brought up the water issue, especially since we've been dealing with that so much lately in our neighborhood. Our Neighborhood Association is actually applying for grants to help deal with the water problem in our urban neighborhood. I don't know if you had anything else to add. I was over there yesterday and of course I looked at the situation. I never took under consideration your concern across the street. And I never took under consideration the fact that there would be water runoff. I always thought that there was a sewer somewhere along that would catch the water coming down from that side of that parking lot. And I do understand what your concern is. Now, the other concern I have relative to your concern is, will it take up the sidewalk if they extend this? It won't take up any of the sidewalk, will it? Take? I'm not sure where I understand. If they extend the parking lot to the front rather than to the back. If they extend it forward instead of backward. Yes. No, the sidewalk will stay the same. I mean, the sidewalk will still be the sidewalk. Yeah. It just won't – right now there's a buffer of green, and that helps you not feel like you're just walking through a parking lot. Well, then let me ask you a question. What would be worse, the parking situation as it is right now, are them extending it to ease some of the parking off of the street and maybe off of the side street? I can understand that you're concerned wanting to keep it green, but also you're wanting it to ease the parking. Yes, I guess the concern is that what we were told is that it would be within three feet of the sidewalk, which really isn't much of a buffer at all. I mean, that's pretty much an arm's length. So all the way from the buildings that are across the street that are built right onto the sidewalk, across there all the way up to Agman, it would basically be pure pavement, except for a three-foot buffer. I don't know if this will totally satisfy their concerns, but just to emphasize that the staff recommendation is to only go to within 10 feet of the sidewalk. That will ease our concerns quite a bit. I guess one of our other things is the parking is not really an issue for me. Some other neighbors did raise it, and I told them I would bring that to you. I've grown accustomed to it. I've been over there when it's been super crowded and the traffic has been real tough, and I do understand that. But being over there and seeing, and I respect you for your concern relative to that front part, and if it could be adjusted to what the staff is recommending, would you be amenable for that? Yes, and one thing that I noticed in some of the other variance appeals was that there was going to be a landscape buffer was recommended. And I did not see that in this one. And so I was wondering if it could be clearly stated as such that there would be a landscape buffer. We'll wait until we hear the applicant before we discuss that. And that would – if it was said that there was going to be a landscape buffer, I think that would appease a lot of people's concerns. And the additional 10-foot setback. And with the additional 10-foot setback. Let's share them, and thank you for coming down. I do understand your concern. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I think Condition 3 answers that question where it has to be with Article 16 and 18. That covers the landscape. Is that right, Jim? Mr. Hume, could you read to us what that Article 16 and 18 would mean specifically for this site so that the opposition would understand what that, what they would be getting in the form of a landscape buffer? Article, it is shrubs. We can look that up over here, Jim. I'm sorry? We can look that up. We've got our book. It really deals with the requirements and options for landscape. It could be shrubs with trees every 40 feet, I think. I'm not as familiar with landscape as it is. I think that's correct. But 16 and 18 deal with landscape. Well, I just thought it'd be nice if we could verbalize that here so that she could take it back to her, the people she's representing, and explain what's going to go on. It does answer your concerns about it, though. It does deal with the landscape buffers and requirements for parking. There's options in narrow areas. You do get an option whether it's a landscape buffer or a fence to block that view. It allows them to narrow that buffer down some. Right. No, it's a barrier, site barrier. I have a question about was there any communication between the applicant and the neighborhood association I mean with the layout of this parking lot was there you know some sort of meeting where you all you know got together and and talked about this with the neighborhood no it wasn't no no Well, let's hear your – you two gentlemen, please. Okay. I think what she's saying with the moving back to 10 feet – can you put the drawing back up? That would basically take out those front three – front three lots and, of course, increase the green space or the landscaping space. We're familiar with the landscaping ordinance and we're familiar with the drainage requirements which would have to have a storm detention basin in here to control the additional runoff at least and maybe if we can reduce some of the – to extend we can maybe reduce some of the runoff that's even coming off now. So I think with the – and I think these gentlemen said so with the increase of that to 10 feet, that setback, we've got – I think we have everything covered that they're concerned about. type of uh were you going to put shrubberies in there in the front or what were you going to normally and i'm sure i'm from winchester but i feel like it our ordinance is based on your alls and uh most time that's a uh shrubs maybe about three feet high i think so it'd be like a little three foot high uh hedgerow now we use burning bushes in winchester i would be getting with these people to see what they like but that was kind of and then you have the trees you have the trees every 40 feet and that's what we have in Winchester so there'll be a there'll be a couple of trees maybe three trees up there and then the I like a three foot high hedge. I guess I would ask engineering a question over there relative to the water runoff how how can they be worked with to maybe decrease the additional water from hindering the people that live there in that particular area particularly across the street directly from it. Yeah if we've got a documented downstream problem they'll obviously have to analyze a certain part of the system to make sure that if they are adding additional water that it doesn't cause a problem if it if this current system you know can't handle any more than like the gentleman said they will have to provide detention on site and if we do have a downstream problem we may require them to do additional detention to alleviate that so you know at worst case is it won't get any worse than it is best case is that it will get better so that's the drain the drain that that water runs in now on the street does the drain run all the way up the street I can't tell you for sure I'm not not familiar with that area so the reason I asked that question is that if to help to prevent that type of a problem I was thinking that maybe at the end of that driveway that could be a drainage if it does exist that way which I kind of doubt that it would yeah over there in all that area I kind of doubt that it goes that far all the way from block to block. I would agree. But that would be something you all would have to work with them relative to that water control. Absolutely, yeah. Staff, anything you want to add regarding this? Board, you all have any questions or concerns before we consider this case, please? I'd like to ask the objectors if, you know, if you're comfortable with these changes or adjustments that are being made here if you think that the people you're representing would be happy with the outcome if we were to vote on this today? Or would you like to have an interaction with the applicant and, you know, where everything is, you know, redrawn and spelled out exactly what's going to happen? I guess our thought is yes. I think with the 10-foot, that does make a significant difference. Like I said, you can't reach over and touch the car when you're walking by. And then it just occurred to me that I'm also representing some people that live behind in Rand, and so we don't want to forget about that back area of the way it looks as well. But I think if they are going to do landscaping with shrubbery, which will, you know, buffer the visual and some trees, which would be a nice addition. I think I feel comfortable going back and telling the people if that's truly what's going to happen, then I think we would feel comfortable with that. I can't see them disturbing anything in the back. Can you? I'm sorry? I can't see them disturbing anything on the backside. I was thinking if that I see that there's landscaping back in the back and I think that's good as well so I think that's understand it the visuals in the back as well I think I feel comfortable going back and telling them Jim I think we need to do something with the condition another condition on there I have a question. Kathy, why do they need a barrier? They've got, it seems like, acres of land there. That might be a question. Why do you feel like you need to even be closer than 20 feet to the sidewalk, given the amount of real estate you own there? Because it is our hope to build a Lifeway Center there. Build a what? A Lifeway Center there. Another large church building? Yeah. So you're trying to keep this parking confined on these two lots? Yes. I mean, it looks like you're staying with existing property lines. Is that part of the objective? Yes. It was on 227 and I think 233. When you build this new facility, will you need additional parking beyond these spaces? We're not sure yet. That's going to be a little ways down the road still. Well, if the opposition is comfortable with 10 feet and the landscaping buffer and you'll work with engineering on your runoff, I can support this. Sir. Any other questions or concerns? When I visited the site, it looked like at the back of the parking lot, is there access out the back? There's kind of a corner and it looked like there was an open, there was a chain link fence and there was an opening. yes there is we normally keep it closed other than like funerals and stuff like that just because of the traffic coming through so there's no okay so during a normal church service there's it's not well actually we have two one is on the side and one is the back the back one normally stays open actually that's three the one on the back normally stays open the one on the two on the sides we normally keep them closed is that i mean is that a problem with with anybody in the neighborhood it I'm talking about the back and it it I'm not oriented I can't see so It's the back parking lot and it's in the curve and I don't know what that street is behind the parking lot That's a deal. But I thought that there was a… There was an entrance in and you can't come out the entrance. You go in, you park, you come in behind the church and out on the same street. Yeah. It's not a street. It's just an entrance and an exit way. Any other questions or concerns? so the opposition are you satisfied if we can get it worked out the way you want it with the 10 foot and buffer The new construction, I hope that you will come to the neighborhood of the station because the new construction will have a dialogue before. Other than that, yeah. Well, we thank you for coming and we understand your concerns. We don't have any more discussions, comments, and I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that CV 2011-34 Shiloh Baptist Church appeal for a conditional use permit for additional parking lot in a planned neighborhood residential zone and a variance to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 10 feet on property located at 227 and 233 East 5th Street be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? I'll I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. And before you leave, I will make a comment to you is that I think her point is very clear relative to your future plans in that particular spot. I think it's, you've got neighbors over there and they're very close. And I think you need to keep as close to your neighbors and your neighborhood association as you possibly can. And all that does is alleviate problems for you when you come before this board. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you much. Thank you all. I believe that's it. Staff, do you have anything exciting for us? Nothing exciting, Mr. Chairman, but we do have another training opportunity to inform you about. It's scheduled for Wednesday, next Wednesday, June 29th, in the Division of Planning Office. At 4 o'clock, it's planning law review. It does count an hour and a half to your training requirements. Thank you. Any concerns from the board? If not, I'll... Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment, though. I understand that our Mr. Griggs has been reappointed to the Board of Adjustment, effective this morning. He received an email, so I guess we've got him to kick around for another four years. Welcome back, Jimmy. Jimmy, congratulations. I just go show you we're not gonna let you get away from here. Yes, and we're also gonna raise your stipend Yeah, yeah, I'll do All right. Thank you all and have a good weekend boards adjourned you