Excuse us for being a couple of minutes late. We were up here running around. And we just, three minutes to get by. We'll get the meeting started. September 9th meeting, which was supposed to have been our monthly meeting, but we didn't have enough people here to make a quorum, so we moved it to today. today. If you are here for testifying, would you please stand, please? Everyone that's going to be involved in the process, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All of you who have cell phones, if you don't mind turning those off or putting them on silence, if you have to use it, we would ask that you step outside, please. We are staff. Is there anything that you need to address us with before we sound the agenda? The cases that we have that have been recommended for postponement. Is there anyone here who wants to postpone or withdraw? Please come forward, please. Give us the name of the case and the page that we're on, if you don't mind. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 2, item D1, conditional use, case C, 2011-29, Stephen Howard. I represent Stephen Howard and we're requesting an indefinite postponement of that case indefinite yes any comments from the board i just have a question uh for for staff how long is and i i'm not used to uh doing indefinite postponements in the past is there some type of timetable on that there really isn't it will stay postponed until such time as the applicant may ask that it be brought back to the board if that ever happens it would be treated just as a new case and there would be new notice sent to the area property owners and it would basically start over again very good mr murphy any idea when your client no the reason we're doing that is you may have heard the mayor is appointing a task force to study this winery issue so we wanted to let that process go on and we do not know how how long that's going to take. So if we do come back, we would, as Mr. Silley mentioned, have to re-notice it like a new case would be. Any questions for the board regarding the case? So just out of curiosity, does that mean the real difference between this and a withdrawal is that they don't have to pay a fee if they want to bring it again? Yes. The recommendation for the board, will you accept this postponement? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll move that item C-2011-2022. Stephen Howard appeals for conditional use permit to establish special event facility. Accessory to a small farm winery in agriculture rural zone on property located at 3497 North Cleveland Road be postponed indefinitely. I have a second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Murphy. We're going to sound the cases and those that have individuals here that are contesting are, we will ask, we'll move the cases to the rear. Those that do not have anyone here in opposition, and we will take those cases as they fall in order. We will sound the agenda as follows. The first case is going to be V2011-54SF Dahlhaer LTV Partnership. Is anyone here for Dahlhaer's? Anyone here in opposition to this particular case? Okay, no opposition. Next case. Here's A2011-51, Dr. Gray B. Knapp, Montague, LLC. Dr. Knapp? I'm representing Dr. Knapp. Is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case? All right. Our next case is A2011-52, Dr. Stan Ferguson. Dr. Stan Ferguson, is anyone here in opposition to this particular case? A2011-53, Manuel Hernandez. Anyone here in opposition? Staff, do you have any comments or questions about this case before we start? All right, then we will hear the first case, Mr. Dahlhert Partnership. Please come forward, Mr. Dahlher. Good afternoon. We have a... Tell us who you are, please. I'm Joe Dahlher, representing the Dahlher partnership. All right. Have you... The staff has recommended approval with several conditions, three conditions. Have you read, and do you understand the conditions, or do you agree to abide? Let's see. Yes. The cones, I have one question about the cones. Exactly where are they to be positioned? Probably need to let Mr. Gallimore kind of explain the reason behind the cones to direct traffic around where the tents are set up. Okay. So if the tent ends right here, if the cone is right here, or just so it's visible and it's large, is that satisfactory? It might help to put up the site plan and kind of outline it on there. Okay. All right. Very good. Just hold on a minute. We want to look and see how we put these cones. Put it over there if you don't mind. Alexandria Drive. Yes. Alexandria Drive here. Here's the area that they've requested to place the tents. I think the intent behind the cones is to not have vehicles be going through this traffic aisle here. So cones would be set up right here and right here and probably have to have something here to prevent traffic from going through that area. when will these be put up well i mean let's see as soon as i can find them uh we'll get them put up probably by monday they'll be up how many tents are you talking about um there there's more than one tent but when when we say tent it's more like just uh an awning it's not an enclosed type of tent It's wide open. They're selling vegetables and fruit. The main purpose for the variance was so we wouldn't obstruct that drive. But based on what I hear from placing the cones, you want me to definitely block off that area. That's right. It's a public safety issue. We didn't think it was a good idea to have vehicles going through there as people are kind of wondering about the sales area. Well, will that hinder the people going in trying to find parking for that particular situation? There's plenty of alternative routes for people to get to parking areas, and it shouldn't be a problem. If it's a double lane, if we just block off one lane, or do you want the whole thing blocked off? I think the intent, just like some of the other areas where we have the farmers markets and things, basically where you have a high concentration of pedestrians, you do not want them mixing with vehicular traffic. Due to the fact that the way that your parking lot is laid out, You're not really cutting off access to any properties or anybody. They're still parking close by. So like I said, it's really just the area in front of the booths that we think should be blocked off from vehicular traffic. Okay. Any questions from the board? I think the answer to your question, Mr. Darher, was yes. They want you to block off all the traffic that passes through that area. Yeah. Thanks. Got that. If we don't have any more questions, I'll take a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that we approve Dauhair Limited Partnerships' appeal for a variance to reduce the required front setback from 20 to 8 feet to allow temporary outside tenants to locate adjacent to the curb in a shopping center parking lot in a neighborhood business zone on property located at 1801 Alexandria Drive, based on the staff's recommendations of approval and subject to the three conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Good luck, Mr. Dollar. Thank you. The next case is A211-51, Dr. Gary B. Knapp. You would come up and give your name, please. Jeremy Clements, representing Dr. Gary Knapp. The staff has recommended approval without any conditions. Do you have any questions or concerns? No, sir. Staff, you don't have any questions or concerns? Board, any questions or concerns? I just have a question for staff. So my understanding of the way the statute is written, it does not expressly limit any single family dwelling to a single kitchen. It just limits it to a single housekeeping unit. So this is just an interpretation that building inspection has regularly had that you can only have one kitchen in order to limit it. Is that correct? I think that's generally true. The kitchen issue is kind of used as an indicator of what the intent was for a particular structure, and that's kind of why we go through an assessment of the floor plan and what the reasoning is behind having more than one kitchen to see if there's any intent to have more than one living unit. In this case, the answer was clearly no. Are there any other questions? Not out of your motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that A-20-11-51, Dr. Gary B. Knapp, appeals for an administrative review to allow more than one kitchen in a single-family dwelling in an agricultural rural zone on a property located at 977 Harpennis Road, be approved as recommended by staff. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is A2011-52, Dr. Stan Ferguson. Appeals for an administrative review to allow signage on a building wall with no street frontage in a professional office P1 zone on property located at 2517 Sur Barton Way, Council District 6. Tell us who you are, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I am Dr. Stan Ferguson, orthodontist here in Lexington. I appreciate your willingness to hear this appeal this afternoon. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read and do you understand those conditions? Yes, sir. I just have one question about resubmitting the signed permit application. I did that with Mr. Walker. Do I do the same process again? How does that work? I think that's true. You'll just need to coordinate with Mr. Walker. Yes, that is. Getting a signed permit. That is correct, yes. Okay, great. I understand everything. Thank you. Are there any questions, Board? I am not out of here. A motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we, that with respect to Case A 2011-52, Dr. Stan Ferguson's appeal, for an administrative review to allow signage in a building wall with no street frontage on a professional office zone on a property located at 2517 Sir Barton Way be approved based on the staff recommendations and with the two commissions listed. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. The next case is 2011-53, Manuel Hernandez. Appeals for an administrative review to allow a banquet facility in a building not currently or firmly used as a residence in a neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 1449 Alexander Drive, Council District 11. The board has recommended disapproval, and we don't have anyone here in opposition, so Mr. Hernandez, if you will tell us who you are, then we will let you plead your case. My name is Manuel Hernandez, and, well, my only case is that I would like to have that, you know, facilities if you can, but I just don't know what to do at this point. Board, would you give us some background on this case and why the board is recommending this approval, please? This case pretty much comes down to how a banquet facility is defined in the zoning ordinance. The property is in a neighborhood business zone, which does allow banquet facility as a principal permitted use, but in the definition, it's a very tight definition of, quote, what a banquet facility is, and it's shown on the screen here. At first glance, when you read that, it kind of takes you a little bit by surprise because it has that language in there about the building has to have been formally used or is currently used as a residence. And to understand that, you have to kind of understand the history of where that came from, and it was from a text amendment about four years ago that involved a historic residential building in the downtown area. Prior to that text amendment, there was some confusion about what was intended for banquet facilities, and so the end result of that was to provide some clarity with this definition. So it's clear that in a neighborhood business zone, the intent is for a standalone banquet facility to only be located in a structure that has been used as a residence or is currently used as a residence. Mr. Hernandez, I gather you were not familiar with that regulation? No. And you didn't have any legal counsel to direct you or to advise you relative to this? No, not at all. I just came downtown and applied and just followed the instructions. And I didn't know anything about what I had to do. Do you have a better understanding of what the regulation says and means right now? I am now, yeah. Any questions from the board or comments? I've got a question. I'm not sure I know what a, even reading this definition, I'm not sure I know what a banquet facility is. I mean, there's obviously some history behind this definition, but I can't discern it from the definition. I think it's mostly designed for the meetings and social events to differentiate it, say, from a restaurant or from a private club. I think some of the uses that a private club would have are probably similar to what you would expect in a banquet facility. For instance, receptions, civic organizational meetings, things of that nature. but it was proposed as a text amendment to differentiate that type of a use from a restaurant or a private club where there are more accessory or ancillary parts of their operation. Are there fewer requirements on a banquet facility than a restaurant, for example? There isn't from a local permitting standpoint. There may be from things like ABC requirements and possibly even the building code, fire safety code probably would be similar. There may be a few fewer regulations for a banquet facility. So it's intended to be as a temporary structure or temporary use? I don't know that the use would be temporary as much as the events would be temporary, say, compared to a restaurant or a private club where you'd have consistent operations. Okay. Can I say something? This type of bank is just on weekends, like for birthdays and cartelions and things like that. So it's such a small place. They make all like 120 people. and the reason I came to apply for this is that I request for that type of facility in the area. That place used to be a nightclub three years ago. It used to be a huge nightclub. Now it's divided in different spaces. Mr. Hernandez, what is next door in 1425 Alexandria Drive and what's on the other side of that in 1485 Alexandria Drive? 1485 is a restaurant, and 1425 is a restaurant. 1425 is like a computer type of thing. 1439 is a clothing store, and 1465 is a bakery, and 1449 is right between those places. So I have a question for staff. Is there anywhere in that area that a banquet facility could be located? I guess what you're saying is there's a need for a banquet facility, and there's nothing in that area. I guess it's one around 1700 Alexandria Drive. As far as I know, there's one right over there. There are probably a few former residences that now have business zoning on Alexandria, but I would guess it would be less than a half dozen properties that would fit that condition. I do understand what it says up there, but I have a question as far as the, I guess, common sense of it all. You've got restaurants all up on that side. You've had bars on that side. What is the difference between this particular situation and what is already located out there? What is the difference? Did the restaurants that are out there, were they originally residences? I think the main part of the distinction is I think it comes down to the type of other activities that happen there, especially in terms of noise impacts, the live entertainment. In a B1 zone, even a restaurant that has live entertainment has to go to the board as a conditional use. a cocktail lounge or bar has to go to the board as a conditional use. So those things get reviewed by you all to meet those criteria. As you'll notice here in this definition, if it meets the residential use part of this, they can have live entertainment and all those things that are potentially impacting in a neighborhood. But it's in a very restricted setting. Well, that makes no sense. I mean, I don't understand it. It makes no sense to me. And I mean, I think we're probably bound by the definition, but it makes no sense. I think even in your staff report you alluded to the fact that this seems like the argument against it was text-related, not logic-related. This is what we've got, folks. That's what it says. and that's how the Urban County Council decided to approve it. So Rochelle might have a little more perspective here. Well, I think there is an inherent difference in the intensity of a banquet facility. Look at the Carrick House. Look at the vast size of that facility, the tremendous number of people it will draw to a single event who are all there at the same time, not like a turnover of a restaurant. This is a B1 neighborhood business zone. There are other zones where an intense use, such as a banquet facility, may well be appropriate, but a neighborhood business zone generally caters to smaller businesses that will fit in with the surrounding residential uses. And I think that perhaps in restricting, I wasn't involved in this, but logically it seems to me that in making this restriction, they were making sure that, yes, you can have some smaller banquet facilities if you're using an existing residence, but we don't want someone to come in there and buy a piece of land and build a massive banquet facility in a B1 zone because it's not appropriate there. Now, it may be that they could have just termed it as in an existing structure instead of residence. Maybe that's a text amendment that someone could propose in order to allow something that is a more minor existing building to also meet these limitations. But right now, the only restriction in the zoning ordinance is it has to have been currently or formally used as a residence, or it just is not appropriate in a B1 zone. In other zones, you can have these kind of banquet facilities. I mean, yes, they're needed, and yes, we need to have a place for them, but apparently there was a decision made in the past that they just don't want unstructured banquet facilities in a B1 zone. So, I mean, I'm not saying what your decision on this should be, but I think that that may be kind of the thought processes that went into this text amendment. Well, I personally agree with what seems to be the majority of this board that the fact that it is or it isn't an existing former residence doesn't seem to connect, for me, with a particular business use. It seems like a banquet facility should be a conditional use in a B zone. was subject to limitations based on the particulars. I mean, looking at this report, it seems to me that what happened is they expanded the definition to allow residences to preserve a historic structure. It has nothing to do with whether it should be in a residence or not. They just wanted to preserve historic structures, so like Bell House and those places could be banquet facilities. But I don't think there's really any tie. It doesn't matter for what they're doing, whether it was in a residence or not. Nevertheless, I think we're stuck with the ordinance as it is. Is this the kind of thing that the mayor's task force that Mr. Murphy mentioned is going to address? No? I don't think it will address this in rural areas. I don't think he'd want to attempt to address this because of what's on both sides of these. 1485 and then 1425. I don't think the mayor would want to tackle that with any kind of common sense reality. That doesn't make any sense to me. I understand what it says up there, but I do understand that needs to be addressed. That needs to be looked at. Is that our responsibility, or whose responsibility is that? We can certainly relay the board's interest in this to the Planning Commission, that say in an upcoming work session, especially if the board is inclined that this ought to be reviewed maybe as a conditional use in a B1 zone or something like that, that would be very routine for the staff to take that to the Planning Commission. I'd like to see it looked at because I think this is inadequate. But that being said, I'm not sure I'd be in favor of this building being incorporated into a live music venue just because of, and maybe this was coincidental, but some minutes that we're to approve during this meeting had that La Bamba case from 2008, and there was a huge outpouring of opposition to a nightclub at this exact address. And it's because of the proximity to that building to the neighborhood. So I'm not saying I could be in favor of your use here as a banquet facility, but I don't think that this is the proper way to turn it down. Well, I've been in the neighborhood for 11 years, and I own all these properties. I just happened to buy that property. If you went around the area five years ago and you go now, you'll see a difference. I'm trying to keep the places in real nice shape. It won't look like I used to look before. I have paying hands on the council the other day where she's very happy about what I do with the business, and she's very happy about what I, you know, I have a lot of homeless people around the back. They make me clean the whole back yard, tear the fence down, which I'm spending money and all that, and I'm just, I mean, I'm doing, I'm trying to do good for the neighborhood, and that's all I've been trying to do. I'm not trying to hurt anybody. All I'm trying is to make the neighborhood change. I own half of the business and the whole four buildings. Well, it sounds like you're in this neighborhood for the long haul, and they're recommending that the Planning Commission take a look at this definition of a bankrupt facility. So if you follow that process, it might be you could even push it a little bit, especially if you had an attorney. And maybe a year from now, you could come back before us and the law would be written differently. Yeah, I'll follow through. I mean, you can see all those letters that we send out. Nobody appealed. Nobody complained about those letters that we send all over 400 feet around the area. I mean, absolutely no one protested. So that means, you know, it's a good time. It is a good time. So what, if this case is upheld relative to the staff recommendation, what would he have to do, staff, to do what Jim has suggested? How would you assist him in getting that done relative to making another application? Would he withdraw this case, or what would he do? He could certainly withdraw his appeal. I think the reading of that definition, probably the only application he could submit that would have a reasonable chance would probably be a text amendment to the zoning ordinance, and that would go to the Planning Commission first, and then ultimately, pardon me, to the Urban County Council. Well, would any decision by this board relative to not approving this, would that be any type of detriment toward him if he comes back with another petition relative to this same situation? I think that if there's a change in the zoning ordinance, then by its nature, his application will be different. So, in other words, if somehow this text amendment got through and was approved in less than six months, well, then he's going to be applying, based on your suggestion, for a conditional use permit. So it's an inherently different appeal. There would not be a time constraint. If you disapprove it, he can't come back in the absence of a text amendment and apply for the exact same thing because then there's no substantial difference in the application. But whether it's disapproved or withdrawn, if a text amendment is pursued, as soon as that goes into place, his application will be substantially different. Would disapproving it help him? Would that be an argument that he could take before the Planning Commission to show the need? It's kind of a political question, really. Would this be persuasive to them? I don't know. Well, the findings of fact would be simply the definition of a banquet facility. Yes, that's correct. I mean, certainly this will be reflected in your minutes, regardless of whether he were to accept your recommendation of withdrawal or whether you were to disapprove. I think this discussion obviously will be part of the record that can be presented to the Planning Commission so that there were your concerns. Well, we've sort of got our hands locked here by what's written up there. and normally this board does not like to go against that type of a situation relative to the code. So I guess it's up to the board here to make a decision. Do you have any more? Yes, sir. Do you have a comment, sir? Are you speaking for or against? Come forward, sir. I'm Todd Strecker. I'm a resident of the area. I'm president of the Lexington and Versailles Corridor Coalition for 12 years. I was involved in the battle with La Bamba. I know what this man is doing on his properties. He is going in the right direction. He is improving steadily. I've watched this place. I live very close, and he is doing an excellent job. What's wrong here is the text. He doesn't want to do most of what's up there, if my understanding is correct. He wants to simply have a place where families and people can gather for birthdays, dinners, and so forth. He has no interest in alcoholic beverages, music, or any of the stuff we had before that we were in a battle royal to get rid of and got rid of. I think this should be changed so that he can do it. It would be compatible and consistent with the neighborhood area. The Hispanic community there needs this kind of thing. That's why he wants to do it. He's a good citizen and a good property owner. We support him, and I'll work with him and with an attorney, for that matter, to try to define in a way that the Planning Commission would be satisfied. Not be contentious, not be combative, but try to all work together to get it done. I just wanted you to hear that. Thank you. I think you're making a good argument for a change to the text of the ordinance. and so since that's the case, this is probably not the forum for that. And so our question is, how can we not hamper that effort? Which is better for the applicant, withdrawal and seeking a text amendment or disapproval and using that disapproval as evidence of the need for a text amendment? I mean, it's really kind of up to you, and if you have no opinion, we'll vote on it, you know, but we're amenable to hearing a suggestion from those that have asked for this review. With not knowing, you know, what might happen with a text amendment, there's a lot of things on the table we can't predict, But if he were willing to withdraw, that would give him a lot more flexibility in terms of coming back. And it may be based on what he's described that it's not a banquet facility. There's some other use that's more similar to in the current zoning ordinance or something like that. So if he's willing, that would give him more flexibility timing-wise to withdraw rather than to have you all disapprove. If, Jim, if he doesn't withdraw this application and we disapprove it, can he seek some other kind of designation for this property? Certainly. That would not be under the 12-month restriction? I can't say whether there's a good likelihood something will come out of that, but certainly he could pursue that. Okay. Well, I think it's up to you to decide whether you want us to make a decision on it or you want to withdraw until you get more information and some more guidance relative to how you should go about this. Well, I mean, at this point, I have no choice. I mean, I have to withdraw. I mean, since you disapprove it, I guess I have to go forward and see if I can get it done sooner or later. Well, do you want us to vote one way or the other, or do you want us, do you want to withdraw the case? Yeah, I would like to see if you can vote. I would like to hear that. You decide to vote, you know, I just, whatever it is, I mean, it's in your hands. It's not in mine. I think the vote is going to be, it's looking right at us from up there. I don't think we can do anything else but that. So just one question before we vote. So, Mr. Marks, are you saying that say there is some definition other than banquet facility, I don't know what it is, that the use they want would actually be okay or a conditional use? If we vote no and he reapplies to ask for this new thing, whatever it is, is he time barred for six months or not? Is it a new application since it's on new grant? No, he wouldn't be time barred. It would be new. I don't know if Mr. Hernandez understands that with withdrawal, you have to wait six months to apply for the same thing. With the disapproval, you'd have to wait a year. So it's just a matter of how important that six months is to you. But it sounds like that unless there's a text amendment, it doesn't matter whether it's withdrawn or disapproved. Well, either a text amendment or, as they were saying, perhaps what he's going to do there isn't really a banquet facility. Right. And if it's an application for some other use? Then that would be substantially different. That would be different. Then would he be barred? No. Okay, because it's a different application. So it sounds like it doesn't matter what we do. I'm sorry, that was misstated. It doesn't matter whether he withdraws it or whether we disapprove it with respect to any kind of barring of future applications. Is that fair? I suggested withdraw it and not get in. Unless his future application is for the same thing. That would be basement money. And that would be a waste of time and effort. Yes, sir. I'll withdraw that. You want to withdraw it? And we have a recommendation for withdrawal from the applicant. Staff, is that conducive and fine? I think that's the best decision. Board, do you accept the withdrawal? All right, Mr. Hernandez, I hope you can get this worked out. And I'm sorry we put you through this, but we're sort of handcuffed right now. Thank you. I think we've got the minutes of July the 29th that need to be approved. I'm sorry I missed that first, but you have the board minutes here of July 29th. I think all of us have probably had a chance to read them. I don't know, Kathy, if you had a chance to look at them. She wouldn't be here. She wouldn't be here anyway. So do I hear a motion to approve the minutes of July 29th? Yes. We have a motion. Do I have a second? A second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anything else for us today? I have a question about that. Will you tell us how we can go about having that looked at? Well, based on your discussions today, the staff will be glad to take that to the Planning Commission at one of their work sessions and identify the use and the basic issue that came up. We'll supply them with our staff report on the case and have a dialogue. Will you take this case as an example of what we're talking about? Yes, sir. I would actually suggest that rather than trying to change the definition of residence, is maybe create a new category. If they really don't want alcohol, it seems like it would be helpful to have a category where you can have parties without alcohol. And that can be Part A, and then Part B can be the one that's been recommended. Exactly. I don't think nightclub, for instance, is defined in the ordinance, so there may be some options there as well. similarly I'm not thrilled with the way we're handling these multiple kitchens so maybe there could be a look at that Kathy's probably more articulate at the problem than I'm going to be able to be but it seems like we're making an exception several times a year and it's based on the affluence and the size of these buildings, and I don't think that's a good way to divide it up. There have been two since the revision to the definitions for single-family dwelling and housekeeping unit. So being a year and a half now that we've had those definitions, it may not be a bad idea to review those as well. and Louis when we go for a vote I haven't heard you ask for the nays so sometimes we don't get the other side that's all I've got my only comment on and I agree with what Kathy's concern is about the kitchens but I don't think I am concerned about how many about a residence having more than one kitchen than I am concerned about. If I buy a house that's 4,000 square feet, why can't I have two kitchens? I mean, what's the problem with that, Jim? I'm sorry. If I buy a home with 4,000 square feet. That's 24,000. Or 24,000 square feet. What's the problem with having two kitchens? I'm not saying I'm opposed to multiple kitchens in a house. I just think that our process seems convoluted, that we're having to make these judgment calls on whether it could be used for two residences or one. It's really not quite arbitrary, but it's leaning towards that. Because you could divide that house up into ten units, to each pair sharing a kitchen. So you're seeing those applications because building inspection is not permitting them, and so that is warranting then a special review by the board on a case-by-case basis. And so that's why you've seen two of those now in the past 18 months. They're not permitting that just over-the-counter. They're requiring a special review for those few circumstances. Well, if these aren't coming to the surface any faster than that, maybe we can just struggle along. But if we started having a lot of them, I guess we ought to allow multiple kitchens if there absolutely isn't two front doors on the building or something. Couldn't we do that with conditions to you? That they don't have anybody else living in the facilities other than who's there, the people that own it? Are there residents that are there? You don't add any more residents to it? Couldn't we do that? I'm not necessarily opposed to multiple kitchens in a single-family house. I just think that it sometimes seems arbitrary how we might allow it or disallow it. I think the one we had, I don't know if you were on this board. We had one over here off of D-Long, I believe it was, which I totally agree with what you're saying. and I think that purpose was something else other than just one single family. Well, that house is back on the market. The mother has moved back to Europe or deceased, and the listing shows it as a house with a guest house. So these kitchens do go into places that are big 10-acre estates, and they end up being or they can end up being a house with a rental property. And I think if a building has concerns about that and they get that application and we're to address it, I think we should have all the information before us before we attempt to make a decision based upon what they say they can't do versus what we think they ought to be able to do relative to the code. And besides the one on this one and the one on Out Richmond Road, wasn't it, where the guy had a double lot, there was one on Lakeshore Drive recently, so that's a third one, I suppose, besides the DeLong case. We had one downtown here. I can't think of the street that's on, but you... I can't think. You remember the photographer came in, lived right across the street from it, came in and complained about it, about them putting a double kitchen in a two-story townhouse. It wasn't a townhouse, a two-story apartment. We had that case for four hours in here. Was it on South Mill? Mill Street is where it was. Yeah. And we said no to that. So that's the other argument is if you want more density, you'd start allowing some of these granny flats. And I guess in some of the expansion areas, they are allowed now. I'm not taking one side or the other. I just wish that the law was more clear so our job would be easier. Well, we have two attorneys sitting on this board, and it would seem to me like if there is something that we need to address, then we ought to address it in writing and submit it to you all to submit to the zoning. Word changes and things of that nature. The law is not going to ever be clear. That killed that right quick, didn't it? Any other business? Mr. Chairman, just as a real quick staff item, we do want to inform the board that we will have another series of audio conferences this fall. And as soon as that schedule comes out, we'll pass that along to you. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Do I have a second? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anybody in the A's? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, I'll show you.