# Board of Adjustment Meeting Part #1 - December 16, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 16, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2293 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2293?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-12-16 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 47,930 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on December 16, 2011, at 1:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Louis Stout presiding. The board considered six agenda items during the meeting, hearing 26 public comments and taking 6 motions and votes. Of the six appeals presented, one was approved—Bethsaida Baptist Church's request for a conditional use permit to expand an existing church—while five items were postponed, including requests from Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC for a front yard variance; Boone Creek Adventures, LLC for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an agricultural market and outdoor recreational facility; Ball and Wright Capital Holdings for an administrative review to allow a third wall sign; Crestwood Christian Church for an administrative review to allow four directional signs; and Greg Kujawski for an administrative review regarding dispatch and vehicle use associated with a taxi business. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 16, 2011: * Louis Stout * Barry Stumbo * Janice Meyer * Noel White * James Griggs * Kathryn Moore * Thomas Glover * Jim Hume * Chuck Saylor * Jim Gallimore * Rochelle Boland * Jim Marx * Jimmy Emmons * Wanda Howard No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **A-2011-71: BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS** [timestamp: 00:05:13] Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Janice Meyer, to postpone until the April 27 meeting. Passed unanimously with votes from Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Thomas Glover. **V-2011-82: HALLMARK STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC** [timestamp: 00:07:27] Motion by Noel White, seconded by Barry Stumbo, to postpone until the January 27 meeting. Passed unanimously with votes from Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Thomas Glover. **C-2011-79: BETHSAIDA BAPTIST CHURCH** [timestamp: 00:12:56] Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Kathryn Moore, to approve a conditional use permit for church expansion. Passed unanimously with votes from Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Thomas Glover. Approval was granted for reasons and conditions as set forth by staff, including: - Church expansion in accordance with revised site plan dated December 8, 2011, featuring a 12-foot access width, a 20-by-40-foot fenced child play area, and a 6-foot tall hedge along adjoining property - Obtaining necessary permits from Division of Building Inspection prior to construction - Paved and delineated parking areas with landscaping per Zoning Ordinance Articles 16 and 18 - Parking lot and access design subject to Division of Traffic Engineering review and approval - Shoebox-style pole lighting with downward-directed, shielded light to protect residential properties - Storm water management plan per adopted Engineering Manuals and Division of Engineering acceptance - Landscape buffer with deciduous trees planted every 25 feet along southern property line, with additional evergreen plantings in specified areas **A-2011-80: CRESTWOOD CHRISTIAN CHURCH** [timestamp: 00:26:55] Motion by Noel White, seconded by Barry Stumbo, to continue until January 27, 2012. Passed unanimously with votes from Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Thomas Glover. **C-2011-70: BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC** [timestamp: 04:24:59] Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Barry Stumbo, to continue until January 27, 2012. Passed unanimously with votes from Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Thomas Glover. **A-2011-81: GREG KUJAWSKI** [timestamp: 04:30:53] Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Barry Stumbo, to continue until January 27, 2012. Passed unanimously with votes from Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Thomas Glover. ## Public Comment The meeting included extensive public comment on two distinct projects: Boone Creek Adventures and a taxi business proposal. **Support for Boone Creek Adventures** Several speakers expressed support for the Boone Creek Adventures project. Bruce Simpson [00:45:44] represented the applicant, emphasizing good faith outreach to neighbors and environmental stewardship. Burgess Carey [01:12:05] described the project's educational and recreational goals with minimal environmental impact. David Brassfield [01:36:50] explained environmentally sensitive design and tree preservation techniques. Sarah Smith [01:46:11] presented a preliminary environmental management plan highlighting ecological protection and monitoring. Tim Query [02:04:57] testified that the canopy tour design would not negatively affect tree health. Paul Swoveland [02:07:43] represented the Lexington Environmental Commission in support. Neighbors John Park [02:11:36], Bill Mead [02:21:26], and Jane Harrod [02:24:09] expressed support based on positive neighborhood impacts and environmental benefits. **Opposition to Boone Creek Adventures** Multiple speakers opposed the project on legal and zoning grounds. Don Todd [02:35:57] and Knox Vinagel [02:46:12] argued the project constitutes an amusement park violating zoning regulations. Linda Carroll [02:51:38] raised historic preservation concerns for the Boone Creek Rural Historic District. Joan Mayer [02:54:03] highlighted Clark County's lack of involvement and emergency services concerns. Gloria Martin [03:04:40] presented extensive research on state law definitions. Anne Graff [03:49:56] shared negative personal experience at a similar facility. Jim Lurton [03:52:20] raised fire, EMS, and sewage concerns. Alston Kerr [04:00:06] argued the project exceeded square footage limits. Dr. Andy Roberts [04:09:35], William Brown [04:11:52], and Charles Martin [04:13:32] cited comprehensive plan violations and environmental protection concerns. **Taxi Business Opposition** Speakers opposed a taxi business proposal, citing zoning violations and operational impacts. Jill Ricardo [04:10:02, 05:10:02] reported overnight vehicle parking and security issues. Paul Pfister [04:47:07] argued the business gave unfair competitive advantage. Tom Biederman [04:58:22] expressed property value concerns. Douglas Ruth [05:01:00] described disruptions to patient access and safety. Mary Reed [05:47:42] provided photographic evidence of multiple taxis parked overnight. ## Contested Items **Boone Creek Adventures Conditional Use Permit** The proposal for Boone Creek Adventures generated heated discussion among meeting participants. The central dispute concerned whether the project constituted an amusement park under state law. Environmental groups, historic preservation advocates, and community organizations expressed significant opposition to the proposal. Conversely, neighbors and environmental advocates voiced strong support for the project. **Taxi Business in P1 Zone** Residents of Wellington Place opposed a proposal to operate a taxi dispatch center in a professional office zone. Community opposition centered on several concerns: parking disruptions resulting from the taxi operation, potential negative impacts on property values, and what residents characterized as an unfair competitive advantage for the business in that zoning district. ## HALLMARK STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC - appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet **Case Number:** V-2011-82 Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC requested a variance to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 5 feet for a proposed development located in a B-4 and A-U zone [timestamp: 00:07:27]. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended postponement of the appeal. The primary reason for postponement was that the property had not yet been rezoned to R-5, which was necessary for the proposed development to proceed as planned. **Board Action** The Board unanimously voted to postpone the appeal until January 27, 2012, allowing time for the property rezoning to be completed before the variance request would be reconsidered. ## BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC - appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an agricultural market and outdoor recreational facility Boone Creek Adventures, LLC appealed for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an agricultural market and outdoor recreational facility in an A-R (agricultural-residential) zone. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval for the outdoor recreational component with specific conditions, while recommending postponement of the agricultural market portion of the proposal. **Public Testimony** The case generated extensive public testimony from numerous speakers, including Bruce Simpson, Burgess Carey, David Brassfield, Sarah Smith, Tim Query, Paul Swoveland, John Park, Bill Mead, Jane Harrod, Don Todd, Knox Vinagel, Linda Carroll, Joan Mayer, Gloria Martin, Anne Graff, Jim Lurton, Alston Kerr, Dr. Andy Roberts, William Brown, Charles Martin, and Jill Ricardo. The discussion addressed various aspects of the proposed recreational facility and agricultural market components. **Outcome** The Board unanimously voted to continue the case until January 27, 2012, postponing a final decision on both the recreational facility and agricultural market components. This allowed for additional time to address concerns raised during the public hearing and to further develop the proposal. The hearing consumed approximately four hours and twenty-four minutes of the meeting. ## BETHSAIDA BAPTIST CHURCH - appeals for a conditional use permit to expand an existing church **Case Number:** C-2011-79 Bethsaida Baptist Church applied for a conditional use permit to expand its existing facility located in a residential zone. [timestamp: 00:12:56] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the application subject to seven conditions. **Board Action** The Board unanimously approved the conditional use permit application. The approval included the seven conditions recommended by staff. **Key Participant** Tom Lambdin was a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The application was approved. ## BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS - appeals for an administrative review to allow a third wall sign **Identifier:** A-2011-71 **Overview** BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS appealed for an administrative review to allow a third wall sign in a P-1 zone. [timestamp: 00:05:13] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended disapproval of the appeal due to zoning restrictions that limit signage in the P-1 zone. **Outcome** The Board unanimously postponed the appeal until April 27, 2012. **Key Participant** Richard Murphy addressed the Board on this matter. ## CRESTWOOD CHRISTIAN CHURCH - appeals for an administrative review to allow four directional signs [timestamp: 00:26:55] Crestwood Christian Church requested an administrative review to permit four directional signs within a residential zone. The church sought approval to install these wayfinding signs on its property. **Staff Recommendation** The staff recommended disapproval of the church's request for the directional signs. **Public Testimony** The case proceeded to public testimony, during which the following individuals spoke: - Reverend Corey Wilcoxon - Clarissa Spawn **Board Action** After hearing public testimony on the matter, the Board voted unanimously to continue the case. The hearing was postponed until January 27, 2012, allowing for further consideration of the church's appeal. ## GREG KUJAWSKI - appeals for an administrative review to determine that dispatch and vehicle use associated with a taxi business is permitted [timestamp: 04:30:53] Greg Kujowski appealed for an administrative review to clarify whether taxi dispatch and vehicle use were permitted operations within a P-1 zone. The applicant sought determination on the permissibility of these business activities in the designated zone. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the administrative review request. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Greg Kujowski (applicant), Mary Reed, Paul Pfister, Tom Biederman, Douglas Ruth, and Jill Ricardo. **Outcome** After public testimony was heard, the Board unanimously voted to continue the case. The matter was postponed until January 27, 2012, to allow for further consideration before a final determination would be made. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone A-2011-71: BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS until the April 27 meeting - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone V-2011-82: HALLMARK STUDENT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC until the January 27 meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve C-2011-79: BETHSAIDA BAPTIST CHURCH (conditional use permit to expand an existing church) for the reasons and conditions as set forth by the staff - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Continuance of A-2011-80: CRESTWOOD CHRISTIAN CHURCH until January 27, 2012 - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Continuance of C-2011-70: BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC until January 27, 2012 - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Continuance of A-2011-81: GREG KUJAWSKI until January 27, 2012 --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to give those in the back a little time to come in, please, so we can get started with this procedure. We welcome you to the Board of Adjustments meeting for December the 16th. We want to ask that if you have cell phones on you that are on, if you would turn them off, please. and if you have to make a call or if you're expecting a call, if you would step outside so you don't disturb the proceedings. We also want to ask all of you who are presenting, making presentations here today, or presenting evidence for or against any of these cases, would you please stand, please? this could be a very long afternoon would you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I'll ask that again I can't hear you would you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. Before we read the cases, I will ask staff if there have been any requests for postponements or withdrawals. The only part that we're aware of is Boone Creek properties maybe withdrawing or indefinitely postponing the agricultural market part of that request. Boone Creek rep here. The rep is here, Mr. Chairman, Bruce Simpson. and I had sent in a written letter requesting a withdrawal of our application for the Agricultural Marketing Center. I had represented that to the folks that have been interested in this project some time ago, and I just wanted to make that a part of the record, and I'm doing so again here today. When we get to this case, then we will make that point prior to you making your presentations relative to the other aspect of that. Thank you. Anyone else? Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 3, first one under E, number 1. A, 2011-71 Ball and Wright Capital Holdings for property at 998 Governor's Lane. I represent the applicant on that. We are requesting a postponement because we have, as I related to you, I think last month, we filed a text amendment with the Planning Commission. If that's approved, it would render this moot. It'll take a few months to get through the process. We have filed it. It is on the Planning Commission calendar. So we are asking for a postponement until your April meeting. I think that would be April 27, 2012. The staff had recommended disapproval on this particular case. Staff, do you have any objections to this? We're fine with the postponement. Any questions from board members? Do I hear a motion to accept that? So moved. Postpone. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor of signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? So bid. Thank you. Let's move to April. Any others? All right. We're going to sound the program for today. those cases that are have been recommended by the staff to be approved if there's no opposition we're going to take those cases first the cases that are here that would involve those opponents that are far and those that are against your cases will be moved toward the end so we will call them and if you're here we'll ask you just to stand and then we'll find out if you have anybody here in opposition. Case number one. V2011-82, Hallmark Student Development Company, Inc. The staff has recommended postponement on this case. Is anyone I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. We do agree with that recommendation for postponement. that case has been postponed do we have to have a motion on that do I hear a motion from the board relative postponement please so move do I have a second second all in favor signify by saying aye all opposed postponed you have any is that one month or when you want one month Case number two, C-2011-70, Boone Creek Adventures. The staff has recommended approval for a portion of that and non-approval for the postponement for the agricultural aspect of it. Are there all the representatives here from Boone Creek? Is there anyone here in opposition to this? in this case will be moved toward the end case C2011-79 the Sadia Baptist Church at Sadia Baptist Church i'm tom lambden with uh midwest engineering here representing best city of baptist thank you is anyone here in opposition to best city of baptist church we'll call you just shortly thank you case a it's uh administrative review case a 2011-80 crestwood christian church representative here is anyone here in opposition to crestwood christian church we have one in opposition that will be moved toward the end case A2011-81 Craig Kowalski I think I'm pronouncing that right Craig Kowalski Kowalski it's close enough Kajowski Kajowski Kajowski good is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case Mr. Chairman Don Todd I represent the members of the professional office space We're in opposition and would like to be heard. We'll get to you to toward the end. Thank you. Thank you Staff you have any comments relative to the end of these cases. All right, we're going to get started Boone Creek is moved back all of them probably Bethesda C2011-79 Bethesda Baptist Church Bethesda Baptist Church excuse me representatives here can you tell us who you are please Mr. Chairman, members of the board my name is Tom Lambden and I'm with Midwest Engineering, and I'm here on behalf of Beth Sadia Baptist Church. And we did announce if there is any opposition. Any opposition? Any opposition? Thank you. Now, the staff has recommended approval with several conditions, seven to be exact. Have you read, and do you understand those conditions? Yes, sir, and I've discussed it with the church officials, and they are fine with the conditions. And they are in agreement to abide by those conditions. Are in agreement, yes. Staff, do you have any questions for this? Board, any questions? I have a question, please. Right here. I walked around your cemetery, the fence that's located on the grounds and shown on this plat, but there's quite a few headstones outside of that fence. Do you have a plan, since you're building in that vicinity, to handle yes i do and we're not planning any disturbance on that side of the cemetery it is on the the side uh toward the dead end of old tates creek we're not planning to really do anything there well it seems like you're likely to hit some graves from this site plan i just hope you've got a plan to deal with them respectfully yes we we will the church has said that they would like to stay away from that but but they will certainly relocate if necessary okay we have discussed that with them thank you will i have a motion mr chairman i'll move that item c 2011-79 the stesdia baptist church appeal for a conditional use permit to expand an existing church in a two-story family residential and a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 3700 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 aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Case number A2011-80, Crestwood Christian Church. Can you tell us who you are, sir? Good afternoon. My name is Reverend Corey Wilcoxon. I'm the senior pastor of Crestwood Christian Church. The staff has recommended disapproval. And before we hear your side of it, we want to hear, we got one person here in opposition. Where are you, please? Sir, would you have a little seat there? Yes, sir. And we'll listen to this one lady wrote to her opposition. please tell us who you are and you may tell us why you in opposing this please my name is clarissa spawn i live at 1909 belafonte drive which is diagonally across the street from the church i want to speak in support of the recommendations made by the planning services staff regarding the request for directional signage i don't think i need to reiterate the reasons they presented for approving the request. I want to say that the reasons they provided are important to the preservation of the residential character of our neighborhood as well as neighborhoods throughout Lexington. When I first heard about Crestwood's proposal I really didn't think it was a big deal but when I started reading the ordinance and driving around other neighborhoods in fact other neighborhoods I'd lived in I realized that the issue was much bigger than just what the church wanted or what I as a neighbor would be willing to tolerate when I drove around and looked at other large churches and other schools operating within residential areas I realized they did not have directional signage and they seem to be doing fine and that the surrounding streets would be much less appealing if they were dotted with signage I feel that allowing this exemption would set a bad precedent for these other neighborhoods as well as for my own. I also feel that the fact that article 17 prohibits the board from authorizing this request speaks volumes. I feel that this is an ordinance that is considered by the City of Lexington to be important in maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. I thank you for upholding this ordinance and I hope that Crestwood does not seek an amendment and thank you for allowing me to express my views. May I ask you a question before you sit down please? Are you the only neighbor across from the church? There are some directly across from the church on, actually they would be on Belafonte. Have any of those neighbors expressed their concern as you? I have talked to one neighbor who felt that when the church first requested an expansion, which was before I lived in the neighborhood and before Reverend Wilcoxon moved here, that there were certain concessions made by the church to allow them to expand. And part of that was the landscaping around the church and that by putting signage in, it was in some ways kind of cutting away at some of the original. Did the church reach out to you all to explain what they wanted to do? Yeah. Yeah, and I talked to actually I was there with Reverend Wilcoxon when the guy from the planning board was looking at where the signs would be and said that he would need to go through the board of adjustment. Thank you, and I appreciate you being here. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you all for hearing our case and for giving me a chance to speak. Crestwood Christian Church is a vibrant church in Lexington. We have about 800 members who are a part of our church. Our campus, where we're located, features a child care center, a children's wing, sanctuary, administration wing, what we call our chalice hall, which is a large gathering area, as well as a mission center, which includes a gym surrounded by classrooms. We call that a mission center because we see that as a mission of the community. We allow outside groups to use our facility free of charge as a service to the community. Our buildings have hundreds of people literally moving through them each week, the majority of which aren't church members and aren't familiar with our buildings or the layout of our campus. Many of the groups who use our facility have people who come on a first-time or one-time basis. groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, a local food summit that we host every year, the MS Society, Parkinson's support groups. These groups use this facility on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis and these events happen year-round every month. Our campus has four driveway entrances. One of these driveways is located on Glendover and faces Glendover Elementary School. The other three are located on Belafonte Drive and face residences. There are by my count six different residences that are directly across from those entrances that would be most impacted by this, and all of them receive notice of what our proposal was. The issue that we have is our child care center, for example, is located on one side of the facility and our mission center is located on another. So to give you an example, if someone is looking for the mission center but parks on the child care side in the child care parking lot, which is serving, we have two separate parking lots then that person either has to make the walk from one end of the campus facility to the other or get back in their car and drive to that which can certainly be a challenge for the many aged or disabled people we have coming direct activities like we host the Council on Aging conference every year and I mentioned our Parkinson's support group we have I have with me a number of letters from leaders of some of the groups who use our building expressing their support of the idea of additional signage to help the participants in their activities know where they are going to to facilitate the the use of the building and to provide tangible benefits for the people who use those the purpose of our request is to provide simple unobtrusive signage directing people to different parts of our church campus this will help them get where they're going with minimal obstacles and it will also help facilitate the mission to our community I understand that our request does not fall within the parameters of the current zoning ordinance but we would ask the board to help us consider ways we might be able to accomplish our goal in the end our goal doesn't serve the church because all our church people know where they're going it's to serve the community and the people who come to use our facility from lexington and beyond to help them to know where they're going with with a minimal amount of of of travel and a minimal amount of obstacles so that is what we're requesting the board to consider i understand and have read the report that staff has recommended disapproval of that and i also have based on their alternative recommendations. I have questions as well and so I'm not sure the right way to proceed with those questions. Let me ask you a question. Did you? Sure. Staff explained to you the regulation regarding the science? I have read the report that was sent to me about our request. Did staff explain to you the regulation about the science? No, sir. Did you call to find out what the regulations were about the signs? We met with a gentleman from the, I believe from the Planning Commission, who came out when we submitted our initial proposal. And he came out and looked at where we were proposing to put our signage and recommended disapproval, and then recommended that we, if we wanted to appeal, we would do it through this body. I have some comments I want to make regarding this, but I'm going to you asked your questions you want to address to us, and then we probably have some questions we're going to address to you. Sure. Well, my questions are related to staff's recommendation for disapproval, and they're also the recommended alternatives that we may consider, and I have some clarification questions based on those. You want me to go ahead and ask those now? Yes, you can. Okay. But it would have been to your benefit, I think, if you had submitted those questions to staff before you got out here. I didn't know that was an option. Okay. Go ahead, sir. Okay. If it would be better for me to wait and ask these so that I don't take up time in this meeting, I'm glad to do that as well. No, we're here for you. I appreciate that. In staff's recommendation to disprove our request, one of the alternatives they proposed was, and I quote, small and strategically located signs not visible from the bordering public streets and internal to this property. And what I'm looking for is a definition of small, not visible, and internal so that we can get a better sense and clarity of where we can actually put signs and what size those signs can be. Staff, can you help us with that? Signs that aren't visible from the public streets are exempt. the question of how big or how small is relative. It depends on where they're located to determine whether they're visible or not. So there's a presumption that they have to be fairly small to not be visible from the public streets. Then my question to you, what would be the use of having those signs that small if the people can't see them before they get on your property? Well, that's my question. I wasn't sure what size the signs could be. So I was looking for some clarity and definition of what size the signs could be to know whether this was a feasible option for us or not. We just pointed that out as an option for people that do park and get on the site would help direct them to which building they need to go to. You have any other questions? I do. Another recommendation from staff is the use of incidental signs, and I read the definition of incidental signs that were provided in the ordinance. My question is, what wasn't clear to me was may incidental signs be placed freestanding or do they have to be attached to the facility? Staff? My understanding is they can be freestanding. Okay. One of the recommendations from staff is to use incidental signs to accomplish this purpose and doesn't specify location restrictions on the lot of incidental signs. It only clarifies size of those. So I'm unclear. So if we put a sign that meets the size standards closer to the street so people could see, would that meet the ordinance's requirements about incidental signs? It would have to meet the two-square-foot limit and would have to be located where it doesn't interfere with sight distance, people coming in and out of the exit access point. Okay, so if so if it doesn't interfere with that and it meets the size requirements those would be allowable. Yeah, I don't think there's a specified setback for an incidental sign. Okay, thank you. Those are my two questions. I want to ask you a question. Sure. Because I got lost in the smallest sign that you want to put on your property. Okay. relative to who can see it and who can't see it. Would it be beneficial for you to request postponement of this for one month until you can get this information clearly to you and clearly to staff relative to what you want? Possibly. What I was looking for was clarification on the incidental signs. If we can move in that direction and meet those requirements, that may satisfy what we would need to know from this body. So I'm not sure if that's something that would need to come back to this group or not. Let me ask our legal over there. Was my question fair in asking that of him regarding the possible postponement here since the staff has recommended disapproval? I think it's up to the commission. I mean, you have the staff report and the regulation before you, and it was the staff's recommendation that this board didn't have the authority to grant what they were asking. And if they follow the staff's recommendations, it sounds as if no board action would then be required. So, I mean, I think you can either make a decision now or whatever you choose to do with it. Let me hear from the board. Do you all have any questions regarding what I've suggested? I think the question that Reverend Wilcox asked the staff are kind of along the lines of the same kind of questions I would have had for staff. I like the idea of postponement. Maybe they can work this out informally and not take up our whole time here. Or continuance. Mr. Chair, I agree. I don't know the difference between a postponement and a continuance. This one's our general. Okay. Well, then that would probably be a continuance procedurally. would that be would that be miss bowen would that be a continuance not a postponement because because i agree i i think yeah and i would say you have some evidence that's already been presented here you also had testimony of an in opposition that needs to remain part of the record so continuance is technically the term reverend wilcox and i would i would suggest that you all get together with staff because the way that that this application was was uh was presented And obviously, as the board, under Article 17, directional signs are not permitted in this R1C zone. And we don't have the authority to increase the number of permitted signs. So if we have to vote on this today, I couldn't support it. And I think that we might be able to reach some kind of a resolution if you get with Mr. Marks and his staff and we continue this for another month. And the reason I'm saying this to you, I don't want you to lose the opportunity to get something what you want. That's kind of where we were coming from as well. I completely understood the reason for disapproval, but I also heard some alternatives presented that I wanted to explore and wasn't sure the avenue I could go about, how I go about exploring those. So I feel satisfied with the response. Would you feel satisfied with the continuance? I would feel satisfied with the continuance, absolutely. Do we need a motion on that, please? I'll move for a continuance with this case. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. We'll see you in one month. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Get with the staff. Okay. I will do that. Thank you. A2011-81, Greg Kajowski. Yes, sir. Tell us who you are, please. Yes, my name is Greg Kajowski. I'm one of the owners of Mr. Taxi, and I'm also an attorney here in Lexington. And we're here today to file an appeal. Well, we filed the administrative appeal. We got a letter from building inspection on October 24th of this year stating that we are in violation of a P1 zone for displaying or leasing automobiles. and we filed our appeal on November 15th of 2011, stating the basis of our appeal. I don't believe that, I don't know if I'm supposed to just procedurally go into... Well, what I'm going to do, I'm going to, just give me a minute. What I'm going to do is to just tell you the staff has recommended approval for following reasons, but I want to listen to the individuals that have opposition and we'll grant you your chance after that, all right? Okay. All right. Thank you. So if you'll have your seat. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Don Todd, on behalf of the opposition, and I had indicated to my clients that inasmuch as the Boone Creek issue would take several hours, that it would be unnecessary for them to appear until 2 o'clock. And I anticipate this will be at the end of your docket as opposed to at this point. Well, there would have been no way that we would have known anything about that relative to where you were going to be on the docket. I think it's... Well, I published the docket, and it was listed subsequent to the Boone Creek case. I just assume you would follow that itinerary. What I'm going to do, I'm going to grant you your request and move that to another aspect of this meeting. Thank you, sir. I want to give everybody the opportunity to voice their concerns, and Mr. Kajowski, we're going to ask you to wait around a while. All right. Now, that brings us to, I think we're coming to the Boone Creek now. That brings us to Boone Creek. C2011-70 Boone Creek Adventures. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm sorry. We do have a substantial number of letters I need to hand in, so I don't know how you want to work for Boone Creek to have time to look at them. Are those people in opposition or are those people who are supporting? Both? Okay. Okay. Before we start this process, I want to give the staff the opportunity to make any comments that you might have regarding this case, please. I believe that momentarily Mr. Simpson will be indicating withdrawal of the agricultural market portion of this request. And we as a staff, do I have a motion here to accept the withdrawal of the... I don't believe we need a motion on that, Mr. Stout. Don't need a motion? All right. Then that part of it is being withdrawn. Anything else you want to? Just a real quick update because I'm sure they'll get into the details of this. The site plan has been revised several times since you all met last. The most recent revision is dated December 9th, 2011. So at some point, do you all have a large version of the site plan you'll be putting up later? later or? Okay, just, I just don't want to get into that now. If you all have something you're going to show later. Okay. The staff is still recommending approval. We do have some amended conditions that I'll pass out. Those are on. Okay. There's enough comments for everybody. After the staff finishes with this presentation, we're going to give this board about five minutes to go through some of this material we have up here before we start this particular case, please. Go ahead. staff do what you want to do. As far as the recommended conditions go, numbers 3, 5, 7, and 9 are new conditions that we felt we needed to add based on, in part, some of the revisions to the site plan and other issues that have come up. Other than that, it's just a little tweaking. the condition one just references the revised site plan of December 9th. And that's pretty much it from our end. We can get into more detail later as needed. All right. Mr. Simpson, if you'll give us about five minutes so we can go through this, if you don't mind. Mr. Marks, is there a new, is something new being circulated? I only see seven recommended conditions. It should be on its way down to you. On the way. There you go. and while we're going through this i want to make a couple of comments one particular comment to you we're going to allow the opposition as well as those who are in favor of this to to speak if you desire but please if you if you don't have anything to add to what you've already heard please don't rehash it we don't want to hear it over and over and over and over if it's basically the same general thing that you're concerned about and you want a speaker to speak for it or you want to speak for it fine but we don't want to hear the same story from everybody and i hope you understand why but we appreciate you being here and we also appreciate the fact that you have a genuine interest and concern about this particular case I would ask if you all I wanted to step outside and try to figure this out for you come back in here but I don't believe that's possible . Thank you. Thank you. yeah we'll do that yeah if you want to for music Thank you. yeah uh we have some fire boys and i can put it on the board if you don't come up on the screen there's some or yes Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. thank you um which we're going to reconvene the meeting and for the the way we're going to start this we're going to allow the opposition to make your case because I know that a lot of people have to leave and then we will allow those who are in favor to make your case in case you have to get out of here. Then we will deal with the other images of this after we hear the proponents that are in opposition at this time. Please understand what I said. We don't want any repeats up here relative to why you're in opposition. If you have any one individual who wants to speak for all, fine. If not, we will be willing to hear you. but try not to Mr. Chairman not to upset the kettle too much we don't necessarily need to go first I just wanted to have an opportunity to identify those people who are in opposition so they can stand and you can see before we begin with a case in chief for both sides I think it would be appropriate to have Mr. Simpson go first since he's the But if you don't have a problem with that and some of your people have to leave That's okay. That's fine. But I would like to ask at this time that all those people from the Boone Creek and Old Richard Road Neighborhood Associations who are in opposition to the request of the Boone Creek Adventures to please stand and be seen by members of the board. Not all of them are going to testify. I'm sure that will set you to ease a little bit, but they want to show their success. It most certainly will. All right, Mr. Simpson, you've got the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Boone Creek Adventures, which is principally Burgess Carey, a lifelong resident of our community. and I suppose like Mr. Todd, he and I have been doing these things for, in fact, he got me started in this line of work. It's customary. I'm not sure the value it is. As a lawyer, it has no legal value how many people show up at a given hearing. I hope you all aren't persuaded by that, whether it's a room full or one. The issue is the merits of the case. In this particular case, of course, you have a neutral party, which has already spoke your staff. They don't have any vested interest. They're not being retained by a particular party to speak on behalf of a particular side. They've already given you a recommendation for approval. But just to indulge the folks that have come down to show their support for this application, who came down here, maybe not necessarily to speak, but simply to show their support for Mr. Carey's proposal before you today, I would ask that those folks stand at this time. So you can see we do have a few folks here in support of our application. If you all would stand at this time, those in support. Merry Christmas. Thank you. As is customary in cases where involving land use disputes and people that you can't readily convince that your proposal is worth a favorable endorsement by nearby property owners or nearby neighborhoods, we reach out to people. I do as a representative of an applicant, even as a representative of an objector, just simply to meet and see if we can have some common grounds. And I know, Mr. Chairman, as long as I've been coming before you, before anything starts in a contested case, you suggest that the parties go outside and see if you can work out the differences, and you did that today. And I want you to know that we reached out to the folks that are here today to testify in opposition a number of times. Before I was even engaged in the case, Mr. Carey met with the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association and a number of other individuals involved in this case to see what he could do to satisfy and address their concerns. And then when I got involved in the case, we had one full neighborhood meeting in which we sent out notices to everybody in the notification area that we were going to have a meeting. We had a meeting at the Gene Ferris Winery several months ago and entertained questions and made a presentation. And then we postponed our application that was set to come before this body, continued to meet and discuss with folks their concerns and tried to address them. And then about a month ago we met with representatives of the Neighborhood Association, Association, Mr. Todd, Mr. Grady, and others to see exactly what were the specific concerns. Give me your specific concerns. That's the thing I asked them specifically even before the meeting. Tell me what we can do to address this project that will eliminate any opposition that you might have. So at least if we can't meet it, we'll know where the differences are. And we met for about four hours in our office in that regard. So we come to you today on our behalf, have reached out to folks as best we can to try to come up with a proposal that tries to minimize controversy. We're not 100% there, obviously. We're having a hearing today. But I will say that we have operated in good faith. We've tried to compromise when we could. We started out with the Agricultural Marketing Center and this recreational facility, and we felt like that was going to be too much of confusion to deal with both applications at the same time, even though we believe the Agricultural Marketing Center was a worthy project. But we withdrew it. It's like there's no use going to the Board of Adjustment and having two major hearings on two different projects. Let's focus on one at a time. So we've withdrawn that. That's not before you today. It's not on our site plan. And then we met with the folks, as I said, and what we've picked up during that time was that they were concerned about our site plan wasn't specific enough. And so we've endeavored through those meetings and consultations to come up with a site plan that is specific as we can be at this point in time without getting your all's approval to warrant paying substantial sums of money for engineers to go out and actually do test sight lines for the canopy tour portion or the walking bridges and suspension bridges that would make part of all of this, lay out the trails for the walking trails and the bike trails and mountain trails, mountain bike trails and the children's playground area, and all of those things that are part of our application that Burgess Carey will talk about shortly. But we did come up with a specific site plan, and Burgess will go into the specifics that we have outlined on that plan. And that plan is a governing document. If you approve this application, we're obligated to conform our operations with that site plan, in addition to a number of other proposals that we're going to submit in writing, the conditions of the staff, some additional conditions the staff has not suggested be imposed. We're going to suggest some additional conditions for your all's review. as well as a management plan on how we manage the operation in terms of the environmental aspect and the ecological aspects so that we maintain the very beauty that we're trying to showcase. We've engaged engineering companies, Smith Management Group, to address those concerns, and we're going to share that with you today through the testimony of Sarah Smith, the president of that company. We have scaled it back because of the meetings we've had with the neighbors. They had some initial concerns about the lodging facilities that the tree houses we were proposing were lodging facilities. And so basically we've eliminated any kind of shelter. It's just going to be a basic platform that you could put a tent on or some other kind of temporary structure that they would bring in themselves or rent from us. Again, a very primitive concept, consistent with the staff's recommendation. The other thing we've done is we're not proposing any kind of new construction within the 300-foot setback of Old Richmond Road. There are a couple of existing facilities there that have been there for a long time. Former Jolly Roger Restaurant has been there for some period of time. And an old tenant house, we're proposing to use those as part of our project. The Jolly Roger Restaurant, there's a person living there now, would be the welcoming center. Burgess will talk about that. Same within the tenant house or someone living in that. That would be part of the children's area. But no new construction in that area. So we believe we have, in terms of the major issues of concern, the agricultural marketing center and the tree houses and moving back 300 feet with no construction, we weren't asked to come up with a management plan to engage an environmental company to go in and assess the baseline of this entire area, what's there, what's sensitive, what's environmentally precious, what do we need to safeguard, and how do we go about doing it during the proposed construction period. And then once that's done, come back with an amended plan that's more operational, still consistent with the original plan, but would be a deal with the actual day-to-day caretaking of the recreational facility once it gets ongoing. So we're mindful of one thing that's abundantly clear in all these cases, unlike a zone change. Once you get a zone change as a property owner, you've got it. You've got it, and no one can take it away from you. When you come before the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use application, it's conditionally approved. And it's modifiable. It's modifiable at any time. It's modifiable on your all's inquiry. If you want to have an inquiry about what's going on with Boone Creek Adventures, you can bring us before the board and say, I want to see what you're doing. We're obligated to come. Someone makes a complaint about what we're doing. We come before the board for the purpose of reviewing what's being done. The building inspector can come and issue a report, which you're supposed to do once a year, or even sooner, unannounced, and we would have to come. So it's modifiable. Even future conditions could be imposed. The conditions that we're proposing, along with what the staff is proposing, along with a very serious research preliminary management plan on pre-construction, also is a condition of approval that we can be held accountable for. We have tried to build into, in other words, after all is said and done, to be sensitive to what the neighbors have expressed to us that they're concerned about the most, and to put conditions upon ourselves that can be enforced, objective conditions, to put together a management plan that takes care of this property that's so beautiful. Many of you all have been down there and seen it. I know Mr. Griggs has been three times and several other of you have been down there at least once. We invited the attorneys representing the objectors to come down. one of them did come down. Knox Venagola, the Fed Alliance came down. It's been a very transparent process in terms of what we have represented we want to do and what we have shared. I'd hoped to share our management plan sooner but we kept fine-tuning it and fine-tuning it until today. I gave it to Hank a little while ago for review. Ms. Smith will go into that in terms of a PowerPoint presentation and she also has a booklet to share as well. So we come here today having tried to minimize the conflict, minimize the issues, but we still have some concerns and so we're prepared to address those concerns and respond to whatever else they may say. We've asked them to be specific and what I've represented to you thus far is specific as I know. So I've got some exhibit books I'm going to pass out at this time. We've already passed them out. And the first The first item that I have is the staff report, which we're relying upon, of course, simply because, as this body well knows, particularly in cases where there's contested sides, the staff is mindful that not everybody's going to be happy with the decision. And so they take even greater pains to be careful before they make a recommendation. And I won't say any more about that except they've recommended approval. Under tab number two are simply some photographs. You'll see more photographs of the site. Those of you that have visited the site can attest to its beauty. No question about that. That's under tab number two. Under tab number three, one of the items that you will hear some concern about is that this area that we're proposing for a recreational area is in a historic district. It's called the Boone Creek Historic District. That's under tab number three. I'll put this up on the overhead just so you can see it. the darken the lights a little bit You raise that up a little bit, Jimmy. Center it. This entire area is the Boone Creek Historic District. It's a little over 4,000 acres, and our proposal is right along in here. This is the Kentucky River here, and this is Interstate 75. We're off exit 99 on Interstate 75. We have about 165 acres, and it's about 4% of the historical district. But we're mindful of the importance of that district, which is why we engaged Smith Management Group to also look into that aspect of our proposal as well as contacting the Kentucky Heritage Council and as well as contact the Historic Preservation Commission here in Lexington. Jimmy, if you'd put up the next slide. The next slide is in terms of neighbors. Obviously, neighborhood associations reach far and wide in terms of those that are members and where they live. clearly the closer one is to a proposed land use change, generally the more sensitive and the more likely to have adverse reaction to a given land use proposal if you live right next to it as opposed to down the road several miles or wherever. My experience has always been that most of the people that get really excited about it, understandably so live right next to a proposed change in this particular instance however this is the proposed Boone Creek recreational facility right here and that the part that's outlined in blue this is under tab number four the part that's outlined in blue are people who will actually support the development. The largest part, this area over here, and I have a letter that I'll read shortly from those folks, is the Osbrooks. That's several hundred acres. Then we have the Meads down in this way here, the Mead family. There's also actually another property owner that's going to be testifying from Durbin Lane, but I don't have her on the map as yet, but you'll hear from The Sniders, of course, they're actually leasing some of the property to Mr. Carey. They have this property right there. And then the other folks are the Parks, John Park. He'll be here testifying. That's his property right there. So if you're looking at the immediate property owners, who one would think would be most sensitive to what's being proposed, in terms of what's there virtually all of it is in blue and I think that's important you can turn the lights back on lights on there we go My vision is bad. I can't make it on a laser. Under tab number six, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, tab number five, there are a number of letters of support, some of which perhaps you've already read when they passed out shortly before the hearing began. And I have found it to be fairly unusual, in fact, very unusual, particularly in a case such as this where people have engaged counsel to represent them to find other people that would find favor and actually write in. It's generally my experience that the people that want to defeat something will show up for one of these hearings, whereas people that would be supportive typically don't show up. That's not true here. We do have a number of supporters, as you've witnessed when I asked them to stand. And a couple of letters that I just want to highlight, there's a number of them in there. I'm not going to obviously read every letter, but the first letter is a significant letter because it is from Paul Swoveland, who is the chairman of the Lexington Environmental Commission. They reviewed this. They went down. Paul went down there. He's here today to offer his comments about the application. He went down and toured it, met with Burgess Carey. their board met and issued a letter of endorsement. The second letter is from Jim Browder, who's the president of the Lexington Convention and Tourism Bureau here in Lexington. The third letter is from the Kentucky River Keepers, Pat Banks. The next letter is from Mark Singleton, American Whitewater. and the next letter over is from the Alan Banks Professor and Director of Center for Appalachian Studies talking about the significance, importance, and endorsement of the proposal. And then a name that you may recognize, Everett McCorvey, head of the University of Kentucky's Music Department. He, too, has experienced it and endorses it. And all of the other letters, if you take time to read them, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, What you will find in those letters is repeated references to their experience with Burgess Carey and the caretaking that he's undertaken for 11 years on this property, a portion of this property that's been operated as a fish camp. So each one of them, for the most part, has said he's been a wonderful caretaker. He has been sensitive to the environment. In fact, he's helped to clean it up. One of the owners that wanted to be here to testify, and I will read her letter in a moment, Ms. Ashbrook, vouches for that, that since he's been there, the area that existed before he came is cleaned up, and there's less problems than there used to be. I think those letters of endorsement are important simply because they are substantial, and there are a number of people here today to speak in favor. Now, Mr. Kerry came before this group in August of 2011 to seek approval by this body for a private fish camp. And this body approved that. And there were certain conditions imposed. and you'll be hearing some testimony, no doubt, later from those in opposition who will say that he was approved for a private fish camp, but at some point in time he advertised for people to come down and to use his facility, to rent it out, if you will, on his website and on Craigslist. And Mr. Carey will explain to you about that. The private fish camp remained, but he felt like it was necessary to entice folks to come down and take a look at it, rent it, and experience it in hopes that they would become members. Now, maybe he should have advertised it a little differently in terms of come down for the purpose of looking at it for membership, but he didn't. He's here, though, to tell you that he's taking care of the property. The neighbors have not found complaint with what he's done, nor has anyone else. I contacted the Division of Building Inspection, Mr. Hume's office, and under tab number six, I wanted to know, because when we met with the neighbors and this came up, that I said, well, maybe there were some complaints made about his previous approval as a private fishing club. And so I asked Mr. Dewey Crow, the director of building inspection, to research his records and to see if there were any complaints filed against Mr. Carey, even after they became aware. It's not like he hit it. It was on Craig's list and a reference on his website. that someone might complain about what he was doing, but there were no complaints as reflected in Mr. Crowe's email to me. Again, we wanted to make sure you all were fully aware of what was taking place and what you'll hear commentary about. It hasn't created any problems or issues, but it probably could have been done more carefully in terms of the advertisement seeking potential new members, but it wasn't. The other aspects of what I have under tab number 7 and tab number 8 and tab number 9, you will hear from David Brassfield in a moment. He is the company, his company, Steps, is the company that is the highly regarded canopy tour developer and builder in the United States. David's been down here a couple of times. They've done preliminary assessments, and they have talked with staff at the Urban County Government. You'll hear from those folks in a moment about his design, the sensitivity with which he utilizes the techniques to have these canopy tours installed. Sometimes they're called zip lines, and he'll explain to you the difference between a regular zip line and the canopy tour program that we're featuring here today. Under tab number 10 is Smith Management Group's extensive resume. They are widely regarded in our community. They've been very involved in getting McConnell Springs cleaned up over the years, as well as a number of environmental concerns that the public now uses the lands that they've been involved in assisting property owners. We wanted to get the best to do a baseline study, to do a management plan, and to guide the directors and the developers of the project who are sensitive to this kind of thing anyway, but in particular in terms of a management plan after they left, which they've done and she'll talk about. Tab number 8 is the zoning ordinance, and I'll get into that if I have to regarding Article 8. Under Tab 12, it's been suggested that what we really are doing here should not be considered by this board because it is considered an amusement park. Now, I give full credit to attorneys to make arguments, but I'm here to tell you if you can find that this is an amusement park after you listen to all the testimony and the representations, the conditions, and the illustrations, you've bought something that I didn't anticipate that you would buy, that this argument that might be suggested, that will be suggested, that this is an amusement park. Your staff doesn't believe that it is. The fact that zip lines, if you will, these rides that people hook on to, and there's guides that will be with groups of eight, the fact that they have such a thing that's a component, one of the elements of this 160-some acre development, is regulated by the state, Department of Agriculture, under a statute entitled amusement rides, does not transform this application for recreational use into an amusement park. There are entirely different uses. I've got a legal memorandum citing the case law relevant to our position. Again, your staff does not believe this is an amusement park that would be prohibited in the agricultural rural zone. this is in fact a recreational facility of which one of the elements is a canopy tour to the extent we want to get into discussion and debate about that we can get into it finally under tab number 13 our proposed additional conditions that I will get into at the end of my presentation however at this point mr. chairman I want to have Burgess Carey dress the body he is going to explain to you his experience down there, the length he's been down there. He'll explain to you what his proposal is in detail. We have the site plan here. He's got a PowerPoint presentation that will illustrate it in greater detail, and he will answer your questions about anything you care to ask. Burgess? Thank you, Bruce. And I'd like to first thank everyone who's come down here on my behalf or in opposition. I think that demonstrates the scenic quality and the beauty that can be found in this gorge. It's humbling. Over 15 years ago, with my good friend John Park, I was fishing on Boone Creek, and we discovered, or I discovered for the first time, this incredible location. I had no idea it was there. I'd grown up in this town, spent my entire life loving the outdoors and pursuing outdoor activities. And since then, my involvement with that property has changed my view and I think many others' views of Central Kentucky, the resources here, and what we have to offer. Slide, please. After 10 years of promoting the relatively unknown diversity of the Boone Creek Gorge, we're set to take the next step in the pursuit of our mission, to celebrate and promote the rich history, unique geology, wildlife, and vegetation of central Kentucky, while expanding our facilities in a way that embraces the responsibility of stewardship of our priceless landscape. Slide. For the first ten years, our Boone Creek Anglers Club has promoted and enjoyed the world-class fishery in the Boone Creek Gorge, primarily fly fishing for trout, but always using catch and release and leave no trace principles. Beginning in late 2011, the Boone Creek Anglers Club plans to expand, acquire, or lease the lower end of the gorge on both sides of the creek down to the river. The first step in the Boone Creek project will be to adaptively reuse the former Jolly Roger restaurant in truck stop building. This will become the Boone Creek Welcome Center and will contain a guest reception area, guide meeting room, office, and a guest amenity area. Parking will be located on the existing footprint, where the former gas pumps were and the existing canopy and driveway is still. Once trained, guests will leave on foot and proceed to their adventure destinations. The largest component of this project is the canopy tour, and the slide you're looking at here is indicative of what elements these tours can use. You've heard already the definition of a zip line, and that is one of the elements that is used to transport participants through the canopy and to gain perspectives that you can't otherwise see. You'll see here platforms, spiral staircases, and suspension bridges in these locations. This is in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in the Redwood Forest in California, and in Asheville, North Carolina. This canopy tour will allow visitors to experience this spectacular but previously inaccessible gorge. The Adventure Canopy Tour will feature spectacular scenery from dramatic perspectives, highlighting the unique limestone palisades and rich cultural history inaccessible to locals until the completion of this project. With an elevation change of almost 400 feet, guests will soar 150 feet over Boone Creek within the primary and secondary growth trees using a combination of zip lines, suspension bridges, spiral staircases, repelling stations, and fixed cables to move through the forest canopy above the gorge and the creek that formed it. Depending on the season, guests will witness breathtaking spring wildflowers, fall colors, winter snow and ice scapes, and dense summer canopy. Guests will also learn about the pre-1800 industrial development in the area, as well as hear stories of Daniel Boone, Boonesboro, and the colorful Clay's Ferry area. In addition to the elevating experience of the canopy tour, Boone Creek Outdoors will offer seasonal educational programs that will reinforce the historic heritage of our site, learning about the unique geology and the early pioneer history while witnessing the remnants of these structures first hand. There will be ongoing eradication projects for invasive species and mitigation of erosion caused by cattle. Additionally, there is the potential for archaeological and environmental field studies as part of the educational programming. As a result of the canopy tour and the additional acreage that we're able to take control of and utilize, recreational opportunities to visitors will include hiking, mountain biking, a challenge course, additional fly fishing, a climbing wall, and a children's activity area, as well as unique camping platforms. The hiking and mountain biking trails will be constructed by hand or using leading best practice techniques that will minimize the environmental impact. Guests will be subject to inbounds and out-of-bounds rules similar to a ski resort, with penalties for going out-of-bounds or for inappropriate behavior. The trail system will have from one to three pedestrian and mountain bike accessible bridges spanning the Boone Creek Gorge. This will connect to a contiguous rail system on the Clark County side, allowing the outer perimeter of the trail system to approach six miles in length. We move forward with the support of the Kentucky Mountain Bike Association Bluegrass Chapter. Fly fishing programming will be expanded to include daily rates for guided and non-guided fishing access. Again, catch and release only, this section of the creek is over a mile in distance from the Boone Creek Anglers Club to the Kentucky River, with opportunities to fish for trout, largemouth and smallmouth bass, bluegill, crappie, walleye, and even muskie. The children's area will be located in the immediate vicinity of the climbing wall in the challenge course. The children's area will include a classroom, indoor play area, children's climbing area, and kids' zipline. These activities will accommodate those too small to enjoy the other activities found at Boone Creek Outdoors. And in addition, Boone Creek Outdoors will partner with the East 7th Street Center and Big Brothers Big Sisters to ensure underprivileged urban youth have access to the outdoors. The climbing wall and tower will be used for introduction and instruction on basic rock climbing and rappelling skills, as well as a challenge course, which will employ ropes, support structures, and cables in a limited area to allow participants to challenge themselves on a self-guided, three-dimensional experience designed to teach all ages to push their physical and psychological limits in a safe and controlled system. Canoeing and kayaking is seasonal, but Boone Creek Outdoors will manage a small livery at the mouth of Boone Creek for access to the lower reaches of the creek as well as the Kentucky River Palisades. Kayak instruction and guiding on Boone Creek may be available to qualified guests. Boone Creek Outdoors has long supported the whitewater community by offering the Anglers Club as a takeout. Our camping platforms will offer a limited number of unique experiences for guests interested in the rare opportunity to spend the night in this spectacular gorge. Inaccessible by vehicle, guests will be required to pack in and pack out all they need for their overnight stay. Boone Creek Outdoors has the potential to bring new visitors into Fayette County to experience something that was previously inaccessible. It has the potential to grow into a national class attraction that will stamp an indelible impression on the minds of visitors with regards to the perception of Lexington, the Bluegrass Region, Central Kentucky, and our Commonwealth. The location and scope of this project will serve as a southern gateway to Fayette County by calling attention to the diversity of outdoor recreational activities here and will be in a position to promote and support other Central Kentucky features like the Raven Run Nature Sanctuary, the Lower Howards Creek Preserve, the Kelly Farm Corn Maze, and the Gene Ferris Winery. Now, I'd like to point out what Bruce pointed out just a minute ago regarding the location of the facility. Most of you are familiar with it, but if you're not, the point of emphasis I think that is most important... I'm sorry, okay. The most important feature in this area is right here. This is the interstate, I-75. When this interstate went through and was built, I believe in the early 60s, it bisected the Snyder Farm, which went all the way at the time down to the Kentucky River. The Kentucky River runs off of the corner here or here and goes around in a loop. So this peninsula is surrounded by the interstate, the river, and the neighbors that you see marked in blue who have all indicated their support. Those neighbors and myself at the club or any other guests have lived with the consequences of the interstate ever since we had the property. As you've already heard, my property was a former gas station. It was a gas station and truck stop, the only one at that exit. It's been closed for many years. and back in the 70s there was actually a leak out of the tanks and a fish kill down on Boone Creek. When I bought the property in the mid-1990s, one of the first things we did was remove the tanks and decommission that site as a gas station. I felt and still feel that the highest and best use for this area is the incredible scenery down below the road at the creek. Next slide, please. so this property as I said with the interstate we're impacted every day we live with 20 to 40 decibels of noise 24-7 we have people turning in and out of the interstate interchange constantly and the impact has been dramatic on both the Snyder Farm and our property and I would even go so far as to say that that's our neighborhood association the interstate because we all deal with issues that are very different than those further up the corridor but I understand the concerns and fears of some of the property owners further up Boone Creek and the numbers of guests that I hope to have at our facility because my mission is to share this property in a managed way however keeping their concerns in mind I have designed our facility and tried to maximize the natural features that exist here to minimize any potential impact you've already heard me mention the Welcome Center which will be a required check-in for any guests at our facilities whether they are self-guided or whether they're on the canopy tour obviously anyone on the canopy tour is going to be clipped into a line from the start to the finish the tour will exist in this general vicinity right here and in fact the welcome center the former gas station will be where guests go in, meet their guide, get their equipment, they receive their safety training, and will leave the gas station going down several steps to where they will begin their tour. The tour starts with a short line, a short zip line, where guests can get comfortable with the concept of being clipped into a harness and being above the ground. and at this point we have identified three beginning lines that would basically parallel the existing driveway and end up in a platform right here in this tree, a large oak tree that is below the grade of the road. And at that point, if guests are not comfortable with the canopy tour, they can step off. When they step off, the location of that tree is right above what will be the hub of activity, the Children's Center, Climbing Wall, and Challenge Course. All that will be below the existing tenant cabin that's within the 300-foot setback. At that point, guests will begin the tour in earnest, and we will be crossing the gorge in several locations. The guidelines that David Brassfield and his builders worked with when they came down here were to highlight the natural features and the historic features along this gorge. We have a spectacular resource in this area, one of the first industrial structures built west of the Appalachian Mountains, the Rogers Mill, built in 1803. And in this stretch of the creek, a spectacular pair of palisades with primary and secondary growth trees. so guests will complete the tour in this area and all these canopy tours are designed with a time constraint in mind the length of time goes between two and a half and three hours to preserve the experience for people so we are fixed in the amount of territory that we can cover using these different elements what I've learned about canopy tours is the art of a canopy tour is that you want guests to begin and end in as close to the same place as they can. And the way that is achieved by using gravity with zip lines is that you make back elevation through these other structures that you've already seen, the spiral staircases and platforms and bridges. And through that constantly changing elevation, you remain in a certain band. You don't go below a certain level and you don't go above it. And the reason that's significant is because the concerns of the upstream neighbors on Boone Creek, which I see as very valid, that there might be trespassing or problems or unattended guests that could somehow get off of our property and cause problems upstream, will be controlled by the tour itself. These guests are clipped into lines from the moment they leave the Welcome Center and start the tour until the moment they get back. And the entire tour takes place off of Boone Creek and below the level of the road. We've got about a 150-foot band of elevation that we've identified that the entire tour will take place in. So as you can see from this demonstration, where the blue color is, is the existing Anglers Club. and the existing anglers club will be off limits to any of the guests for our tours or the amenities that we're going to be providing further downstream. It will serve as a natural buffer between any potential problems from our activity downstream and the northern terminus of our property up here. So this will be signed in several different locations. There will be off limits to guests at Boone Creek Outdoors. The canopy tour guests will get to see this area, but again they'll be clipped in and they will not be off of the tour until they're back in this area and closer to the welcome center where they can proceed to go further south with the hiking trails, the other amenities I've already mentioned, or back to the parking lot and leave. This slide also shows the hatched area that you see that's determined by elevation, and that is the band of elevation that we've identified for this canopy tour. There are natural choke points here on this property that will also help control the crowd. This area right here is a cliff with a spring right below it that comes all the way down to the creek level. And there will be signs in this area that will prevent and alert anyone who is along the creek or hiking off of the trails that they are now out of bounds. There will be signs also on the driveway down right here at that curve that prevents any further public access into the gorge along our existing driveway. this driveway and many of you all have been down it it's pretty steep so you have to have four wheel drive to get in and out but it's the only vehicle access between the grimes mill bridge and the kentucky river it's the reason in the end that i bought this property probably never should have been built it was blasted out of a cliff years ago and as i said it's very steep particularly at this point, and we've spent a lot of money restoring that, building it up with concrete, so it is passable, but it's still not meant for the public. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Anglers Club serves as a natural barrier to all the activities that Boone Creek Outdoors is going to be conducting further south here, and I think that's a significant point. Not only are guests of the canopy tour going to be clipped in and with guides, who have radio contact and will be monitoring overhead this buffer zone. So if anyone were to try to go up the creek and get off the property, they're going to be seen. Now, when people check in at the guest center to go mountain biking or to go hiking and to do those activities that are not included as a part of the canopy tour, they're going to be given a GPS clip that they have to keep on their person at all times, and they'll be tracked at the Welcome Center for staying inbounds and out of bounds as well as for safety. Historically, this area has experienced problems with trespassing. Years ago, there was a kayaker killed on Boone Creek. There's constantly issues of people snumbling into this gorge and not knowing really where they are or how to get out. When we opened the Anglers Club 11 years ago, it was our contention that by having a presence on the creek, which does not exist from the river all the way upstream to the Hunt Club, that there would be a mitigation of this problem. Because 90% of the trespassers who all are there because they want to see this incredible beauty come in off the river and go as far upstream as they can. Prior to the Angler's Club opening, we had an abandoned structure down here, and that was it. So trash was left. There were constantly problems occurring. Well, since the Angler's Club has opened, by virtue of being there, we have mitigated that problem. That doesn't mean that things don't happen, but again, by having a presence on the creek, we've reduced it tremendously. This project will do the same thing. Part of my challenge with the Boone Creek Anglers Club all along has been the small and relatively small number of acres that we had to work with on our 25-acre site, and my mission to share this incredible resource with others who may not know it's there. The opportunity to take over these other farms, as I've already said, allows us to expand our programming, lower our price points so that these are affordable activities, and share this incredible resource with so many more people. But the most amazing thing to me is how the topography, the natural topography of the area, is going to allow us to help control and manage this property. We're going to have 12 to 15 employees every day from the Canopy Tour on site, as well as a full-time staff member both at the Welcome Center here and all the way down at the mouth of the creek. By virtue of the fact that the canopy tour guests and guides will be here circulating, and we'll have staff there and there, there's going to be more management of this corridor and this property than there ever has been since it was an industrial site. I've got some pictures here at the end, if you could just scroll through. One of the challenges, and I'm going to end with this, that I've had through this project has been, and Bruce already touched on this, no one ever believes this is down there. And you all have all visited it now, and I think half of you all made that comment too. I mean, I talk about it. I show it. I put pictures out there. Kayakers know it because they're down in there. But this is an incredibly spectacular and unique resource, and so very different than anything else in central Kentucky. And it's been locked away. We've been able to share it, and my mission is to share it with more people, because it's important for particularly children, but any citizens of our community to know what's here. Wilderness is a very important thing in people's minds, even if they never experience it. But knowing that these things are there and these resources are there is critical. I found that when I travel and I'm asked about where I'm from I couldn't be prouder describing Boone Creek but before I knew it was there and I think this is a common occurrence I love to be in the outdoors well I always thought I had to go somewhere else to participate in the activities that I like and it wasn't until I was an adult and was able to explore and find these things that I realized the resources that we have here in central Kentucky. And I don't think that's uncommon. Boone Creek Anglers Club has shared this resource responsibly now for over 11 years. We've had no complaints in the way we've operated. And it's time to take the next step, to take over a farm that has not been able to be managed agriculturally the way it should, and celebrate the resources that exist there. not only the natural resources, but the historic and cultural resources as well. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, I have David Brasfield address the board just very briefly. questions were raised, rightfully so, about what impact are you going to have on the trees as regards this property? How are you going to hook the canopy lines up and that sort of thing? And are you going to do damage to this area that Burgess obviously so deeply appreciates? And so he researched who would be the best fit, who had the best record for being environmentally sensitive in terms of these kinds of uses. And David, if you would come up and share just very briefly the philosophy that you all utilize in implementing your development strategies for these kinds of canopy tours. Just to give the board, I've passed them out some of your material, but just to highlight for them what it is that you all look to do, why you choose to do it, and how you do it. I'm David Brassfield. I'm the president of Steps Incorporated. We have been building canopy tours in this country since 2005. I believe we probably built the first true canopy tour in this country at the Alaska Rainforest Sanctuary up in Ketchikan in 2005. There are very few real canopy tour facilities in this country. there are many, many zip ride facilities, some of which call themselves canopy tours. And I often have to do a certain amount of work in order to clarify what the difference is. If you have a series of zip lines that are either supported on trees or by poles, and they're calling themselves, as some of them in western North Carolina do, scream time or wahoo, you might think that all canopy tours look like that however there are a number and there are a growing number that are primarily focused on creating basically what's an arboretum in the sky and the purpose of the canopy tours that we build and that Burgess is looking to feature on his property is really about conservation, preservation, and education and hands-on exploratory experience. It's not about wild rides. It's true. You get to soar alongside with the eagles, and out in California, we actually have had builders who were visited by eagles when they were up testing their lines. Others who have been up on platforms and been queried by hummingbirds, what are you doing up here? So it's an experience that we try to make as interactive as possible. It's not a sack of potatoes hurling down a line. You're controlling your own descent and sometimes you actually have to pull yourself in when you get to the end if you've run out of steam under I believe it's tabs seven and eight you'll see a couple of write-ups that I've done that are designed to explain how we minimize the impact of any structures that we put into the forest or onto the land when we build a canopy tour. There are a number of techniques that we use for attaching the cables when we're using a zipline segment that are designed to allow trees to continue growing without starting to constrict the nutrient transport that goes on in the outer layers of the cambium just beneath the bark. I wish that we had some some diagrams in there of this it's probably one shortcoming that I didn't provide to Bruce the illustrations that would go along with this the other thing that we do when we put transfer platforms which are put at every point when it's time to go on to another zip line or to enter a bridge or on occasion and I don't think we're doing this on on Burgess's property at least we don't anticipate it taking a small foot trail from one segment to another those are specially designed with yearly maintenance to grow with the trees you probably are familiar with deer plat for deer stands and others where if they've been permanently put on a tree you notice over time that the tree starts to pull the wood into itself and to pull the hardware in and the tree itself ultimately damages the platform. Our techniques are designed to allow with minimal amount of adjustment those platforms to stay in place and to grow with the tree and actually for the tree to in some ways be strengthened by them. There are guy lines that are involved here. The forces are all pretty carefully engineered and normally we find that canopy tours rather than damaging a forest or threatening its health actually help to conserve it and preserve it so I that is the focus of the write-up on canopy tours and forest conservation and the frequently asked questions which I believe is the next part some questions and answers basically cover the approach that we take, which is not about screaming and yelling and longer, faster, higher. There is another tab in there. I believe it's tab nine, which actually is an unintended duplication of text that's already been included in the longer presentation under Canopy Tours and Forest Conservation. I think that's all that I have to contribute. So much else that I usually do in terms of education has already been put forth by Bruce and by Burgess. Could I ask you a question before you sit down? I'm in front of you over here. No, sorry. On the board right here. Yes. Hi. I thought I heard you mention the use of guy wires. Yes. So my question is, if you've kicked the leaves off the ground, you see that there's rock underneath, and these trees don't have a chance to put down tap roots. How are you sure that these trees won't tip over with the added pool? We work with a local forester and a consulting arborist to assess the strength of the root base and to learn about what the experience in the area is with trees, how sturdy are they. The trees themselves don't have an awful lot of stresses from side to side because we basically guide them so that they are simply upright supports, just as you would the mast on a ship. The forces on those are being taken by cables rather than by the actual tree structure or if it were a pole course, a pole structure. where we have doubts about the ability to anchor into the ground with the guy wires you know we work with a soil engineer to to solve you know any of those questions so that we're certain that we're not going to pull down trees and people aren't going to topple over when they're way up in the top of the canopy how do these guy wires attach to the ground usually they don't really it's possible that they'll attach to the ground more often they attach to the base of another tree in the forest. Sure, thank you. Mr. Chairman I'm going to have Sarah Smith, president of Smith Management Group, give about a 10-minute presentation to follow up on what David said and and what Burgess shared with you obviously it's a special area for a lot of reasons and which gave Burgess motivation certainly to say to this board I need a management plan to show the board I'm serious about taking care of this one that can be reviewed and evaluated as operations unfold and so Sarah Smith has done that she's been to the area several times she's met with David Brassfield who you just heard from, as well as other folks, and has evaluated this site on a number of different fronts, ecologically, environmentally, and historically, and has a management plan that she has a PowerPoint presentation she'd like to share with you right now. Good afternoon. Not only do we have a PowerPoint presentation, but we have a notebook for you. So your notebook will be white, but it will look like this. Mine is black, so I can tell it's mine. I'm going to try and control this myself. Bruce. My name is Sarah Smith. I'm the president of Smith Management Group. We're an environmental consulting firm that has been around for 22 years in Lexington, Kentucky. We also have an office in Louisville. We've worked across North America, and occasionally elsewhere, but mostly the United States. We were asked to review the environmental aspects of the property in order to identify obvious or likely sensitive areas or features. The concept was that we would help develop a management plan to maintain this property and allow the facility to move forward in a sustainable way. We were to identify additional assessment that would be needed after we finished our work, recommend management measures that would protect the sensitive environmental features while allowing the project to go forward, develop a preliminary assessment report, and develop an initial best practices management plan. I think it's important to identify why the assessment report is called preliminary and why the management plan is called initial. The type of assessment we're able to do on a large 150, 160 acre piece of property is a broad review. When there will be soil disturbance in building trails or construction of any type, those particular areas that will be impacted will need to be assessed more deeply. For example, there are likely endangered species on this property, particularly some plants. we need to be very certain that any construction impact avoids a negative impact to those things. But to look at 150 acres inch by inch would be prohibitive. To look at the particular areas that are going to be constructed is not prohibited and is planned. The initial best practices management plan is essentially a recognition of best practices and management is an ongoing process. At this point, we've identified the basic principles of the management plan and outlined the way in which things will move forward into construction. As the project is constructed and moves into operation, there will be more plans that will be developed. Plans will be shifted and changed and improved as you get on the ground and specifically locate all of these activities. I want to talk a little bit about the general location. especially in relation to similar facilities. And I don't know if you can see this. Can you turn the lights down a little bit? The area we're looking at is along the Kentucky River. And there are... Not me. The area we're looking at is along the Kentucky River, and I'm really bad at lasers, so I'm not even going to do that. Does that work better? Well, all right. That's good. Kentucky River winds its way through this area, and there are several existing resources for enjoying this area. There is Raven Run, which most of us are familiar with. Raven Run is open daylight hours. Ma'am, why don't you point here where everybody can see what you're doing? We can see it from here. Okay. Raven Run is right there. It is on Raven Run. It does not have the same features that this property does either on the Kentucky River or Boone Creek. It's open for hiking. You cannot mountain bike at Raven Run. Coming down or upriver, you have Floracliff, which is a remarkable asset. And you may go there by appointment. and by appointment only. Our project here, the arrow points to the area, it's right here, is in between Floracliff and the Lower Howards Creek Nature Preserve. You can go to Lower Howards Creek and take a guided hiking tour. Upriver from there is Fort Boonesboro, which is open access State Park. This project permits a different kind of access to the topography and the environmental features that you find in this general area, and it has some pretty spectacular assets. That's an aerial view of the area. Generally, you can see some things actually show up. This is Boone Creek coming around to the river. if you see there's a feature right here, that's where a zillion years ago Boone Creek used to be. It's called a meander. And that's one of the geologic features that we found that's very, very interesting here. The geology was reviewed specifically by Karen Thompson, who's a professional geologist with Smith Management Group. Karen has a lot of experience, particularly in this area. She was Geologist of the Year last year, which I will repeat all for the next year because it's a great honor, and I'm thrilled that she works with us. The assets that she identified as particularly interesting, and you will find the geology map right here, and I'm about to put it up on the screen too, but geology maps are the most marvelously colored maps on the face of the earth. They're just fantastic. You have palisades. We're all familiar with the palisades on the Kentucky River. you have palisades on Boone Creek. You have caves, springs, sinkholes, the Kentucky River fault system, which we will bring up, and cut off meanders and creek. That's the geology map for those of you who can't see this. This is the fault system. It runs right through the property. You can see that meander that we saw in the aerial photograph. It shows up on the geology map. You have sinkhole systems. That's the red circles. And when they're grouped together like that, you have a system. There are sinkholes identified on the property and will need to be protected. The interesting thing about this property is that so many of these geologic features are very visible and can be used for education. You have a lot of marvelous water features, of course. There we go. The Kentucky Division of Water has identified most of the land use in this area as agricultural. Bauman Branch, which is a tributary to Boone Creek, has been identified as impaired predominantly because of the Blue Sky Sewage Treatment Plant, which the city has just put a request for proposal out to hopefully fix. There is nutrient impact on the Boone River. On the lower reaches of it, the bottom seven miles or so has been identified as partially sustaining its activities, primarily because of nutrient impact, which the Division of Water has identified as coming from agricultural grazing assets, municipal point sources, and package plants. So sometimes agriculture impacts our water, too. There is excellent material available in the Kentucky Rivers Assessment. It's been identified as a whitewater group, whitewater asset. It is a protected water because there is a Kentucky Water Company intake on the Kentucky River just downstream, just past the bridge. Clicker not clicking. There we go. Threatened and endangered species. This is another area where additional assessment will be needed. We've looked at data from the federal and Kentucky Fish and Wildlife. departments. We've also looked at the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission's data, which is generally much more comprehensive. There's a possibility of several threatened and endangered species on site. The ones identified in all of those databases were the Indiana bat, Short's bladder pod, which has got to be one of the more interesting names for a plant, and running buffalo clover. Those assets and others that are identified as potentially there will be looked for in the areas where construction may impact them. So that will require additional assessment. Sensitive landforms. Wetlands, sinkholes, caves, springs, and erosion. Take a look at this picture here. That is an area where cattle go up and down a hill, and the erosion has become very significant in that area and needs to be addressed. This is an open-throated sinkhole cave entrance. This is an area where a spring has created sheet flow and probably will assess as a wetland. We're recommending that everything stay off of that and it be used as an educational resource. That is additional assessment that will be done to confirm that that's a wetland and identify the educational aspects of it. Whoa. Way back. One more. One more. Okay. I'm not running this now. You're running this. Historic assets. Absolutely stupendous. This is part of the Boone Creek Rural Historic District, and you saw a map showing the 4,000 acres that are in the Rural Historic District. There are a couple of very specific sites on this property. One is the Rogers Mill Archaeological Site, and you see the arch that was in one of Burgess's presentations. This is part of the remaining structure, and amazingly enough it's in an area that floods and the waters come rushing through there and then they go away and the arch is still there. This is the remaining hearth from a cabin that's just up the old roadbed from the mill. This area was used as Kentucky's port. Industrial and agricultural products were brought down to the mouth of the Boone Creek and loaded onto flat barges and sent to New Orleans. It was our first port. Next slide. So having taken a look at those assets, we reached some findings and recommendations which have informed the plan that we've gone forward with. There is an opportunity to provide exceptional exposure to these assets in a protective manner, but the management plan must protect those assets. The planned project activities, more than most types of development, will provide the ability to construct and operate with a very light touch on the ground. When you think about trails, they are a ribbon that extends across the property. The canopy tour will touch the ground and touch the trees in very few places. It gives you the ability to see things with very little impact. Additional evaluation must be conducted of areas that will be impacted. Sinkholes and caves need to be protected from visitor intrusion, but can provide some education. The same with wetlands. Next slide. Cattle should be removed and eroded areas repaired. I think that needs to happen quickly. We're losing some of the hillside to the cattle traffic. The historic areas must be protected from intrusion, but again, are an incredible educational opportunity. Waste must be properly managed and removed from the property. Access to Boone Creek is controlled primarily by topography, but the addition of staff in appropriate places is really going to provide a lot of protection from uncontrolled trespass. Keep in mind, Boone Creek is open to the public. If you get in a boat and you go up Boone Creek, you have every right to be there. But it's a good idea to know somebody's there. This facility also can provide some outdoor education opportunities that are really tremendous. Slide. Keeping those things in mind, we address this with a management plan. It's in your book. The assessment report is also in your book. This management plan addresses both design and construction phase and operational phase. It will be continually updated because new plans, new portions of this plan will be developed, things like safety plan, training plan, risk assessment plan. It is based on the principle of sustainability, and that carries through everything. Sustainability is one of those words that can be whatever you want it to be. It's like transparency. We just use it a lot. We don't really know what it means. It means capable of being sustained. It means it meets the needs of the present without compromising the future. It means the capacity to endure the long-term use of resources without using them up, and it must include economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Slide. Slide. Thanks. So the basic requirements of the plan, local sourcing of materials and labor, construction activities that must comply with best practices and regulation and use the least impactful methods possible, activities will highlight the natural and historic assets, activities will be designed to be safe, respectful, education, and provide challenges appropriate to the visitor's abilities. Slide. in design and construction we have placed in the plan requirements for the qualifications for The design team and consultation team, you have met one of the people we think is most qualified to do the canopy tour. There is a team that is being investigated for the trails, and there's information about them in the management plan. Location of improvements need to take into consideration these assets, including the additional assessments we've talked about. Materials should be local. They should be sustainable, which means a wild explanation of sustainable materials. Pine coming from a pine plantation is sustainable. Ivory coming from somebody's tooth is not. Protection of soil, vegetation, water, species, habitat, and historic resources is taken into consideration in the design and the construction. Slide. So, most important when you get to operations is the development of a sustainable level of use. That means a limitation on how many visitors and how many visitors on each activity system and a limitation on the areas that are open to visitors. Sensitivity to the sensitive landforms and access to the historical resources. Slide. As Burgess explained, one of the ways of making sure that that happens is to have a check-in procedure, a reservation procedure, and firm limits. When you check in, you will receive your GPS clip and the staff will know where you are. And if you're out of bounds, you're going to be removed. If something happens and you get hurt, they're going to know where you are because they have your GPS. It will help with limiting trespassing, as will the location of staff members. There is required training and safety procedures and daily inspections of the activity systems, the trails for safety issues, hazards, and waste management, and to make sure everybody's gone. Slide. This shows you with two red dots the trespass control points, or just talked about how the fish camp would prevent and help control trespass upstream. The red dot, this red dot here is on the road. There will be no facility visitors going past that point. This red dot is in the stream. Now, there will not be a gate in the stream, but that is where the cliff comes down into the stream. There will be signage saying beyond this is out of bounds. And you'll have a canopy tour over top, and this person will have a GPS on them. The only people that will not have a GPS that will be in that spot are people who are in a boat and not associated with Boone Creek outdoors who have come up the stream, and they have the right to be there. Boone Creek visitors will not be going upstream at that point. Slide. Most important, when you have a plan, you have to inspect, you have to control, you have to maintain, and you have to review the plan. It is the old continuous improvement of plan, do, check, and plan, do, check. You correct. As you go through your operations, if you find something that's not working or it's not working as well as it should, you correct it. So the plan will be a living document for as long as the facility is operating. Bruce? And that's just a view down to the creek, just in case you wanted to think about flying over it. Turn the lights on, Jim. we have endeavored also as I mentioned we've invited anyone expressing interest in this project to come down and take a tour to see it first hand so they can see the beauty and see the obligations that would be imposed upon someone proposing this kind of use to take care of it One of the people we invited down was Tim Query, your urban forester for the urban county government. We also had Jim Redman come down, environmental planner with the urban county government. Jim's daughter's graduated from college today, so he couldn't be here. But I'd like for Tim simply to come down and share with you his observations in connection with this land, this area, his knowledge of this proposal. He's talked with Burgess Carey and others about the techniques to be employed and engaging the canopy tour. Tim, if you would address the board with respect to your observations and conclusions. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Tim Query. I'm the urban forester in the Division of Environmental Policy with the city. I had the opportunity to visit the property in November. I guess from my experience as the urban forester with the city for over 11 years, it's probably safe to say that any development on property is going to create disturbance. I think we all know that. However, after reviewing their development plan and a thorough review of the materials that Mr. Brassfield, I think, has presented to you today, I don't find any evidence that would suggest that this in any way is going to have a negative effect on the trees on this property. Do I feel that the practices and the systems that they've presented are going to benefit the trees? Probably not, but in no way do I feel, as long as they properly maintain those systems, they should not have any ill effect on the existing trees. You had asked about which trees are they going to select. I have visited those areas, looked at the trees that they're going to select. It's a fact that most deciduous hardwood trees, the root systems are in the top 18 inches of the soil. In this area, it should be noted that the soils are about three feet. Probably the biggest problem in that sense would be just the slope of the land and the gravity pulling the cables and the catwalk. But again, reviewing the development plan and the information that they provided to me, as long as they maintain the bracing, the cabling, the platforms, the hardware, it shouldn't have any negative effect on the health and condition of the overall tree canopy there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. We do have another list of witnesses that I'm just simply going to call, and they can come forward to offer their testimony. I do specifically want to have Paul Swoveland. He's the chair of the Lexington Environmental Commission. His letter is the first one in tab number five of the letters of endorsement with respect to Burgess's application. Paul, are you still here? Thank you very much. I'll be brief. Tell us who you are, please. I'm Paul Swovelin. I'm the chairman of the Lexington-Fayette County Environmental Commission. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood. We are a volunteer or commission out of the mayor's office with appointment and then approved by the council for four-year terms. And one of our things we do is we're set up to maintain, enhance, distinctive, picturesque environment of Lexington and Fayette County. we initiate and participate in environmental education awareness stewardship programs including presenting annual awards and or to individuals organizations and companies for outstanding environmental stewardship one of the things we do is we advise we are specifically tasked to advise and work with the urban county government planning commission board of adjustment building inspection code enforcement so that's why I just wanted to say we're here. We wrote the letter of support for this project upon reviewing it. What the educational aspects of this project we think are outstanding and something that are really needed within Fayette County area. And so we just wanted to state our support into those aspects. I think everything else has been covered thoroughly on the good aspects of what's going to go on in this. Any questions? In your recommendation, have you discussed the potentialities or the possibilities of safety with this program? What we see on this, the commission itself had just briefly looked at it and didn't go into any detailed evaluation. But for my personal aspects of looking at this, I believe this is going to be increased safety into outdoor use of recreational activities. I know there have been cases on private property of people having accidents and getting hurt and stuff, where a facility like this that would train people and give them an opportunity to do it with instruction to interact with nature in a much higher level of safety. of safety. Thank you. Bruce, I would, before you bring up other witnesses in support, I'd like to ask the question relative to the number of people that would be employed on this particular, in this particular project. The employment is somewhat seasonal, but it'll range from a number at all times between 8 and 20. Thank you. I have John Park come up. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, John is one of the neighbors whose property was outlined in blue as a surrounding property owner. Mr. Chairman, board members, good afternoon. My name is John Park. I currently serve as the chairman of the Lexington-Fayette Green Space Commission. I'm also serving as the president of the board of directors of the Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff, which was referenced on one of the earlier maps. I am not speaking here today on behalf of those organizations. I'm here individually as a neighbor and a citizen of Fayette County. I have been truly blessed to live at 8151 Old Richmond Road for about 18 years. During that time, I have almost two or three times a week been fortunate to play in the forest. This is my romping area. This is where I like to run. and it is truly a spectacular, unique asset to this area. When I first bought this property, the Boone Creek Anglers Club property was totally abandoned. The owner had abandoned it. The bank had foreclosed on it, but because of the underground storage tanks, didn't want to have it sold. The house at the bottom of the hill, the lodge, was totally unoccupied. It attracted vandals, trespassers. There was fires, trash, and I can say unequivocally that Mr. Carey's acquisition and development of the club has been a positive for the neighborhood and the gorge in terms of cleaning up and reducing trespass. We still get it from the river. When I first heard of the project, I had very mixed emotions. I mentioned this is my stomping ground. One of my first reactions was, I don't want to share it. It's, it's, I love it that much. My other reaction though, that counterbalanced this possessive kind of selfish interest was the absolute joy I get when I expose others to it. Like Burgess said, I am so proud of where I live and how beautiful it is and I want other people to know that. So when I began looking at this project I had these competing emotions with me. I'm first going to talk about how I think this project will affect me as an adjoining property owner and then I'll speak briefly about how I think it will affect the community. My first concern was trespassing. I was concerned there would be some spillover of project guests onto my property interfering with my use and enjoyment of the property. I think the measures that Mr. Carey has underlined to control access through monitoring stations and natural choke points addresses that concern more so than it is today. Another concern I had was with the traffic impact. Old Richmond Road is quite a busy road, but of course we've got I-75. It's my assumption that the majority of visitors who drive in to come to this will come via the interstate. It carries something like, well, I don't have it with me, but hundreds of thousands of cars a day. Old Richmond Road, no, no, 50-something thousand cars a day, I apologize. Old Richon Road itself is a very well-traveled road. In 2009, the traffic count available at the Department of Transportation website indicated that there was an average annual daily traffic amount of 3,346 cars. I've heard the number of a potential of up to 20,000 Canopy Tour guests a year spread out over 10 months. If you assume you've got 30 days, that's roughly 67 visitors per day. not all of those visitors are going to come in separate cars, and probably a majority will come via the interstate. But let's say that 50 cars a day will use Old Richon Road. That's approximately 1.5% increase in the day. I don't think we'll notice it with everything else going on out there. Plus, it's going to be going in the opposite direction of the commuter traffic. In the morning, Old Richon Road traffic is primarily commuters going into Lexington. The Canopy Tour visitors coming from Lexington, on the other hand, will be going south out of town. Conversely, at the end of the day, the patterns will be switched, so I don't think it's going to add to traffic problems on Old Richmond Road. Noise. Noise is a total non-issue with the background of the interstate. Lights. There's not going to be lights there. There's too many lights already at the interstate, I think. Viewscape. It's not going to impact my viewscape at all. I won't be able to see the project from my property. My property is known as the Cleveland Rogers Historic Property. It's listed on the National Historic Register. I'm very proud of that. I've spent a lot of time and effort restoring it. I've received a preservation award from the city. I do not think this project will have any impact whatsoever on the historic character or significance of my property. I think the educational components of the project will in fact enhance appreciation of the historic and cultural significance of what we have in this area of Boone Creek. Finally, my wife and I have a conditional use permit for a one-bedroom bed and breakfast at a historic log cabin that we occasionally run out to the public. If we decide to do that more in the future, of course, a tourist attraction right next door would benefit that. I also considered how this project would affect the community. I think it will positively impact the community. I wanted to go over some of the things I've been thinking about. This is going to be locally owned and controlled. I think that's important. It's going to add to the quality of life of our residents by increasing the opportunity for recreation and leisure, which will improve the health and well-being of our citizenry. It will educate the public about our unique cultural and natural heritages. and in particular how settlement of this Boone Creek area and the importance of water impacted the entire settlement of our community. It will allow visitors to become more exposed to the natural world, which is more and more of a concern with young people today. It will attract tourists, promote this area as the destination for ecotourism, adventure tourism, and cultural tourism. It will create jobs, and by getting the cattle out of the creek, it will improve our water quality. It will have no impact on prime soils. This area is so steep there's some grazing but it's not significant. The grazing causes erosion and I think because of the environmentally sensitive way these structures are going to be put in they're not going to do much damage and in that regard this is an agricultural zone. Trees are an agricultural product. If the owner of the property wants to he can harvest those trees without a permit. So seems sort of odd that somebody would be allowed to do that but not have structures installed in an environmentally safe manner. The incredibly scenic beauty of this gorge is what's going to invite visitors, and that gives Mr. Carey a self-interest to preserve, enhance, and protect the scenic beauty of this place. The biggest threat to this gorge right now is invasive species. Bush honeysuckle and winter creeper are absolutely choking this out. We struggle with that all the time at Floracliff. If this project enables a revenue stream which allows for management of this and control of this, that's, from my limited standpoint, that's a great benefit. I did have a number, in addition to the positive benefits, I did have a number of concerns. This is in a natural areas category, so the intensity of the proposal must be considered. I've already addressed traffic. I don't think this project is going to have any impact on the transportation systems. I don't think it's going to impact the local neighbors. It's not going to be within view. Cars are all going to be going in here. I just don't see any impact on the immediate surrounding neighborhood, particularly with the improved control of trespassing. And I will note the adjoining landowners are in favor. The fiscal impact of the project on the gorge itself will be minimal. The structures will be built in an environmentally sensitive manner. There will be an adaptive reuse of old structures. the vast majority of visitors will never actually put their foots on the gorge they'll stay up above thereby further minimizing impact trail traffic will be monitored and controlled to prevent overuse again there's trail traffic now down there i think this is the management will be improvement the cables the cables this is one of the biggest things to me will have an impact on your viewscape if you're down in the gorge the viewscape of this gorge however is not a community asset. It's privately owned, inaccessible to the public, and not within view of any public right-of-way. So I don't see that as a reason to oppose this project. And in fact, the project will actually open up visual access to the public that's never had it before to see this incredible asset without harming it. And there should always be a concern about the precedential effects of your actions. This is such a unique property, I do not have that concern that some have. If this is going to be a precedent, you're going to have to have an applicant with a similar project on a similarly situated property. There's no similarly situated property right next to an interstate in the county, and that's just, that's a fact. In conclusion, I think this project will be a tremendous addition to our community and region and the Commonwealth, and I would have no, and would have no adverse impact on surrounding properties. For these reasons, I encourage this board to approve the application. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have another neighbor, Mr. Chairman, Bill Mead. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Mead. I'm a neighbor of the adjoining property. I've had that property since 1979. When I initially heard of this project, I was a little skeptical. I don't like trespassers, and I like my privacy. That's one reason I bought the privacy. It's sort of unique. We had a lot of problems when I first went down there, and I called on Gloria Martin for help when she was on the council, and she helped eradicate some real problems. so she's familiar with where I'm talking about. I have a border on the Kentucky River in front and close to the mouth of Boone Creek and behind. And when I heard, I met Burgess a couple years ago, and when I heard about his project, like I say, I was skeptical. I didn't want trespassers down there. I did attend a neighborhood meeting. I got in touch with the naturalist for the lower Hired's Creek preserve, talked with her quite at length about it, got online, looked at the different websites for the people that Burgess would be working with, and then I went down there and took a tour myself last Wednesday I think it was. I've been on that river since 1952. I've owned that property since 1979. I built my house by myself in 1989 there. Wouldn't take anything for it, and I've been fortunate enough to be around the world and be a lot of places, and there's no place more beautiful than right down there. And until last Wednesday, I did not know that some of the things you've seen on this screen existed. It's absolutely magnificent. That aside, I still don't want trespassers down there. And Burgess sat down and went over the proposed hiking trail and biking trail with me, and I had some concerns with part of it, and we came up with a compromise, and I felt very secure in what he said, and it made sense to him. It made sense to me. And I, in short, I think this is a wonderful project, and I highly recommend it. I feel as a neighbor that my concerns have been addressed and I don't have any more concerns. Thank you, Mr. Meek. And one more neighbor, Jane Harrod. Jane has a particular qualifications in the sciences and a history with this property as one of the owners. Jane, if you would come forward. Good afternoon. I know it's been a long afternoon. My name is Jane Harrod. I'm a Snyder. So part of what's happening is going to be on our property. We own the last section of Boone's Creek on the Fayette side to the river from Mr. Burgess' property. Where Mr. Parks lives used to be our farm also. We're Rogers, and we've owned this land since 1801. We still farm. We have the much-maligned cattle that are on the creek. And unfortunately, we have to have the cattle not on the creek, and we would like to fence them off. But back in, we also have I-75 in our front yard. When you look out from the front porch of the house, you see the overpass bridge, and that diverts the 3,500-a-day traffic count of Old Richmond Road over the 50,000-car-a-day count on I-75. we breathe a lot of fumes but instead of reading what I've got here I have been I'm a landscaper I do native restoration wetland restoration that's what I've done for the last 20 years of my life I was on the governor's board that put together the BMPs for the forestry legislation and I have done projects for fish and wildlife a whole lot of different restoration projects all over the state and loving the creek as I do and I know right where some of those endangered species are that she was talking about I'm certainly not going to allow mr. Carey to come down there and set up a project that is going to impact Boone's Creek or change the hydrology and I want to see the invasive species removed but frankly we haven't had the resources when I 75 went through in the 60s I was a kid it gutted all of our tillable land out of our farm we were the sacrificial lamb we could not farm anymore we had a sustainable farm and after the interstate went through mom went to work at a job she couldn't farm anymore and we couldn't make a living off our farm so with that in mind and the fact that we haven't seen stars in since the interstate went through or been able to talk to each other without yelling or have a good night's sleep without earplugs I would like to say I think this is just a great project I know it's going to give us a small revenue stream that's going to allow me to continue to do my farmers market gardening up on the in the few acres of tillable land that we have left on the top of the hill the ridges and do some renovations to some of our old historic buildings that don't look so good and so I just like to say thank you for hearing us out and I hope you all will approve this project thank you Mr. Chairman, at long last, that concludes our presentation. There's about 12 more witnesses I could call, but I think you all get the message with respect to the research that's been done by the witnesses who have testified, their proximity to the proposed site, their understanding of it, and their willingness to come before you today and take time out to actually speak in favor of something, which, as I mentioned earlier, is extremely unusual, but that is our case. and we will welcome the opportunity for rebuttal at the appropriate time. Yes, sir. We will take a little break for about three and a half to five minutes, please. I need to go. The applicant's presentation took, what, two hours? We won't be that long. All right. Let's get it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. everyone has had the opportunity to talk about finishing up your Christmas shopping. We're going to get back to this agenda, please. And Mr. Todd, we are. Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Todd. I'm an attorney, and along with Hank Ratty, we are representing the Boone Creek Historic Neighborhood and the Old Roots and Road Neighborhood Associations, and together with a number of residents who do not have a pecuniary interest in this project, are prepared to testify as to why this should not be approved. I think the Commission is wise enough and experienced enough to see that those who spoke in favor of neighbors stand to gain profit at some point from this particular project. I have handed out for you and given to you a copy of the statute KRS 247232, which defines amusement rides or attractions. I've also given you a copy of the ordinance, which indicates amusement parks are prohibited use in the AR zone. we've also given to you for your review two other documents which relate to that particular issue i'm going to be short i'm not going to follow a text i just want to talk to you briefly about this project suffice to say that it is an amusement park although a modern type it is amusement park it clearly is defined as such under the statute it's regulated by the department of agriculture, and I'm sure some questions have arisen in your minds as you saw the presentation. Well, who inspects these cables and trees and tree stands and locks, etc.? Well, obviously there has to be some authority. That's why it's an amusement park. That's why it's to be regulated. That's why it's prohibited use in the agricultural zone. Now, one thing we all do agree about is that it is truly a spectacular area with unique geological features, flora and fauna, the riverways, the Moon Creek. It's spectacular. But this is a case where the applicant is going to have between 12,000 and 20,000 people a year. Bruce said to you that we had met initially and discussed this case, and they wanted to find out what the issues were. Well, that was a particular point that jumped out in my mind, but I know it wasn't brought to your attention. Twelve to twenty thousand people a year charged 85 bucks apiece. That's $1.7 million to $2.5 million. This is a profit venture. This is about the bottom line of making money. I mean, I have to admire the fellow. That's a wonderful concept, and they've portrayed it to you in the way they should, eco-friendly. But the bottom line is, this is a huge moneymaker. Now, they've talked about these zip lines, three or four lines that will be 2,500 feet in length, suspended from trees, going from station to station. They also have listed on the map, and you've seen it, you've examined it, there are 12, or there actually are 10 now. Bruce calls them primitive structures, lodging, habitat, whatever you want to call it, that also is not allowed in the AR zone. and several of our people will talk in depth about those particular issues again this is an amusement park that they want to locate in an area that's of great natural significance so much so that we designated it as such in the comprehensive plan we've taken time over the years to develop and i noticed young mr park who's chairman of the green space commission well i was the first chairman of the green space commission we helped establish all of these studies we spent years we spent our lifetime developing the concepts to preserve the agricultural area of the rural rural portion of faya county and i submit to you and our people will testify that the goals and objectives of the current comp plan are not met by this proposal the rural land management certainly is not met by this proposal. The Boone Creek Conservation Corridor and all the studies that designated it as a federally protected on the National Register of Historic District is certainly not going to be satisfied by this particular proposal. I think there are other issues that came to light, at least the absence of their discussion came to light in the presentation of the applicant. Nobody discussed public facilities. Nobody discussed safety, transportation, access by fire and rescue. Nobody discussed sanitary disposal. If you have 12,000 to 20,000 people climbing on wires, or as they did mention, there are rope climbs, there are bicycle trails, bike paths, there are a number of other activities in this proposal, that certainly would raise a question, at least in my mind, as to how you're going to address these things. Your plan hasn't discussed those questions. And I think, as we talked amongst ourselves, the significance of this proposal is as important for what it doesn't mention or discuss as to what it does. Example. You note that there are three bridges on that particular plat or proposed usage. Three bridges go into Clark County. Nobody's discussed Clark County. What are they going to do with the land over there? And one gentleman testified owns that land. I mean, is there another portion of this expanded conditional use that we don't even know about yet? You know, you're only seeing half the plan. Why would you build three bridges to Clark County if you didn't have another idea in mind about what you would do with property over there? Again, we don't know anything about that. We talked about sanitary sewers, or not sanitary sewers, sanitary disposal. How are they going to do that? Where are they going to take it? Where are they going to put it? How do they transport it? How long do they wait before they pick it up when you have 12,000 to 20,000 people going through this particular area? No one is sure where these zip lines go. We just have a general concept proposed in this plan, but we really don't know what portions of the area are going to be affected by this. Has anyone studied the riparian cover, riparian trees, the growth along the river or the creek bank to make sure that there's not erosion? or issues there. I'm not sure they address that thoroughly enough. What about the overnight shelters? Ten people? Twelve people? What accommodations are we going to make for safety? What accommodations are we going to make in case there's an emergency at night? They didn't discuss that either. The absence of the details in this proposal are startling and they're of great concern. And that's one of the reasons why we feel that you ought to turn this proposal down. Honestly, in my opinion, this is an issue that ought to drop back about 60 yards and reconfigure. We need to do some studies and analyze this and determine whether or not there's a text amendment in line. We need to put into place certain protections and restrictions, again, because this is a usage that we hadn't anticipated until the modern era. And I think that's something that you ought to do. I'm not sure you're in a position to legislate on this proposal. They're asking you to legislate. They're asking you to take steps that I don't believe are within the scope of your authority. And I want you to talk about that before this particular case is completed. One final comment. They did a good job of talking about ecotourism. I mean, that's how you sell it. That's what they're doing. They're selling it to you. What is ecotourism? Well, it's low-impact tourism. to a fragile, pristine area, usually protected areas, intended to provide funds for ecological conservation for the resources. This is not low-impact, 12,000 to 20,000 people. It does not protect the environmentally sensitive areas or the unique qualities. They just say they're going to plan and then adapt, replan, and adapt again. It doesn't provide any funds for preservation of the resource. Rather, it adds pressure to the existing resources and compounds that by raising questions of sanitary disposal, safety, wildlife environment. This is not an eco-friendly proposal. It's a modern-day amusement ride as defined in the statute regulated by the Department of Agriculture and prohibited in the rural area. I want to thank you for listening to us. There are a number of owners, neighbors who do not have a pecuniary or monetary interest in this proposal that want to talk to you about it and let you understand the significance of this proposal if it were adopted and how it would affect the other portions of the rural county. This, in my opinion, would set a dangerous precedent to allow this kind of activity to extend into other areas where certainly it would not be compatible either. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Board Chairman and Board of Adjustment members. I will be very, very brief. My name is Knox Vinagel, and I am here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. As you know, the Fayette Alliance is dedicated to planning a world-class city and preserving a world-class landscape here in Fayette County. We believe this sustainable growth strategy will create a quality of life crucial to Lexington's economic and environmental success today and in the future. In furtherance of this mission, we respectfully request that Boone Creek Adventures withdraw its conditional use application until a fundamental legal issue is resolved. and after reviewing Kentucky statutes and case law, we feel it's apparent that the proposed canopy tour is an amusement park, which is expressly prohibited, as you know, in the AR zone under Section 8.1E of our zoning ordinance. While our local ordinance fails to define amusement parks or outdoor recreational facilities, state law does, and it governs this case. The proposed canopy tour facility, complete with catwalks, suspension bridges, zip lines, tree platforms, ropes, courses, and other elevated structures through which people may move for amusement, pleasure, or excitement, is deemed an amusement ride under KRS 247-232 and KAR 16091. A memo from Nicole Liberto, Deputy General Counsel for the Kentucky Department of Ag, also confirms this conclusion. And the canopy tour industry itself promotes the experience for public pleasure, excitement, and adventure, affirming its definition as an amusement ride for purposes of Kentucky law. It's important to note that the canopy tour is not just an amusement ride within an outdoor recreational facility, but rather constitutes an amusement park under Kentucky case law, as its public facilities are permanent in nature, cover a large tract of land, and its users must pay a fee. Therefore, to grant a conditional use permit for the proposed amusement park would allow an otherwise prohibited use in the AR zone, and the Board of Adjustment does not have the legal authority to take such legislative action under KRS 100-247 or Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. You're welcome to review our submitted letter for additional details. We ask that Mr. Carey withdraw his application until this fundamental matter is resolved in furtherance of our community's health, welfare, and safety. If the canopy tour is allowed without first amending our local laws, it will set a dangerous countywide precedent by violating several key provisions of our zoning ordinance, rural land management plan, and comp plan. In theory, the canopy tour is a good idea that creates public appreciation for the bluegrass and its remarkable natural resources. However, the development is currently premature in light of our current land use requirements and the Board of Adjustments jurisdiction. More time and thought is needed on how to establish this facility on a countywide level. Whatever happens at the Boone Creek will have countywide impacts. Without jeopardizing our signature farmland, sensitive environmental areas and watersheds and acclaimed signature ag industries. Just as we have demonstrated over the last several months, the Fayette Alliance remains committed in good faith to work with leaders in the ag community, Mr. Carey and staff to have this discussion. We appreciate Mr. Carey's earnest efforts and understand that ecotourism could be a great thing for Lexington and the bluegrass, but it must be done carefully and in concert with the land use traditions and planning requirements that have served our community so well for so long. We thank Mr. Carey for his proposal and we look forward to working with him in the future. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, board members, Todd Clark, I apologize for my voice. I seem to continue to carry a cold for the past couple of weeks. I speak on behalf of Fayette County Farm Bureau, and much to the chair's comments earlier, I had pretty abbreviated comments to begin with, but I'll further abbreviate those. The Farm Bureau stands alone individually, but a lot of times we are lockstep with the Alliance. This is one time, most definitely, when we're in lockstep with the Fayette Alliance. We are simply to state we are opposed to the Boone Creek Adventures proposal solely based on our belief of its inability to meet current law. I intended to be brief, and that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Linda Carroll. I'm here as the president of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. I'm a volunteer in that capacity. With me is Jason Sloan, who's on our staff and is a preservation specialist. We provided you with a detailed letter regarding this matter. A couple of items that I just want to address is how you wind up being on the National Register, the extensive amount of research that went into that. It goes before the LFUCG Historic Preservation Commission, and it can be passed out or it can be rejected. I served on that commission for a number of years, and I can tell you that we did reject some from time to time on the basis either of merit or lack of research. But from that level, it then goes to the state. This one was signed off on by David Morgan, who was then the 30-year-plus SHPO, the State Historic Preservation Officer. And then from there, it goes to the Keeper of the Register in the Department of the Interior and was signed off there in August of 1994. So we, in this capacity, in our work in the last couple of days, Jason and I contacted the National Trust. We talked to the Kentucky Heritage Council. We talked to the Preservation Kentucky. And we also spoke to a number of local preservation organizations. Our concern is that you are risking establishing a precedent here. We don't have full knowledge of this, but we cannot find evidence where an amusement park of this type has been established in a rural historic preservation district like this. They do exist around the country, but not in a rural agricultural zone. So I caution you to be very careful about that as you make your decision today. We wonder if this rural, beautiful, pristine, we all agree that it is, if it can actually survive 20,000 visitors a year. And so the trust formally asks you to reject this conditional use request. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Joan Mayer. My address is 3300 Jones Nursery Road, Lexington, Kentucky, 40509. However, I live in Clark County. I believe I'm the first person today to talk to you as a Clark Countian. Everybody's forgotten about us. We're right across the creek. We have three bridges planned to come into Clark County, and guess what? No one told us. No one talked to the Planning Commission. No one talked to the Director of Tourism. They did talk to the Director of Tourism. in thinking that they would soon be concerned with Clark County hitching on to the tourists to take to Fort Boonesboro and to take to Lower Harrods Creek. But I live within a half a mile of the Boone Creek watershed. I've lived there since 1958. I'm afraid to tell you that's over 50 years. The plans proposed for this recreational development include Clark County, whether it's said or not. To quote their proposal, a future expansion of 400 to 500 acres in the southwest section of Clark County will be in addition to the initial use of 150 acres in Fayette County. What is this? This plan has been made, as I say, without notification to anyone in Clark County. I happen to just have some neighbors that told me about it. Their own map of the area clearly shows, as has been indicated, three bridges crossing from Fayette County into Clark County over the Boone Creek. One bridge will be down by the river where the water, Boone Creek, is an outlet. another one will be right in the middle of the development and another one will be up on the third part of it could we dim the light so we could see the map please I'm sorry could you take off that little note I have on it thank you now I just wanted to show you how involved Clark County is that big blue line that you go down through there. All on this side is me, Clark County. 400 to 500 acres of me, Clark County. My watershed, the part where I live. But no one has addressed that. Additionally, they've planned, and you can see it on the map, where they have planned to have bike trails and hiking trails go over these bridges into Clark County into that area this area of Clark County I have I have just recently completed two years of working and serving on the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Commission two years of all the changes that we considered during that period, and there were many, there was only one that we all totally agreed should not be changed. Guess where that was? It was southwest Clark County, because it is the only existing, totally rural area we have left in our county. That's all we have, is this part of southwest county uh southwest clark county that we have sworn in the comprehensive plan to protect and not to be invaded by any kind of uh businesses or uh or tourist businesses of that type let me just mention too this is something i'm not real proud of our inadequate road system and that's Grimes Mill that comes down through Clark County, crosses over Boone Creek and gets into Fayetteville. That's a one lane, pardon me while I get in a ditch type road. It's the only way you can get past. That goes down into Boone Creek. Because of our narrow thoroughfare, because of our low city water pressure, as a result of the distance we go to the pumping station, the fact that there are no fire hydrants, no fire stations, no EMT units within 15 miles of Boone Creek Watershed. You have to go clear to the other side of Winchester to get that kind of service. So guess what that does to us in Clark County? It means that if somebody happens to bike over that bridge and comes in and stumbles into Clark County and breaks his neck, who's going to get sued? We're going to be. Because there's no, and you know Fayette County, these people don't come across the county line. If you're dying, they won't come across the county line. That's the rule. So to quote, so just to quote the comprehensive plan of Clark County, we intend to preserve this last bit of pristine, natural, environmental, sensitive land, even though we have not been advised of the plans for it. Now, I'd like to talk to you a minute about the Fayette County Comprehension Plan, and would you please put the next slide on? The first goal is to be preserve the agricultural core, the natural resources, and the cultural landscape of the Bluegrass region and encourage intergovernment regional planning process. Now, this map shows the years that we've been working on this to preserve this area. This isn't new because Burgess Carey came up with a good idea. This is not new. We've been working to preserve this area since in the 1960s. I'm afraid I was one of those people there, too. Some of these efforts conclude working with the Kentucky Division of Water in cooperation with the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Programs of the National Park Service to survey Boone Creek and this area of the Kentucky River. The property owners in Boone Creek Watershed in both Clark and Fad County, from the Athens-Boonesboro Road to the Silverwell Road, have, with Land and Nature Trusts, formed the middle reaches of Boone Creek National Register Rural Historic District. It was federally designated in 1996. It has been mentioned before today. We assisted in the research and funding for state designation for scenic byway status for Grimes Mill, Athens-Boonesboro, McCall's Mill Roads, all in Boone Creek Watershed. Clark County and Fayette County are jointly part of the Bluegrass Driving Tour, which promotes cultural and geological landscape features of the bluegrass. Together, together, the two counties are part of the Fayette County Greenway Master Plan for the designated bike routes. Finally, I would like to read directly from the U.S. Department of Agriculture study for 1995. The landscape, this is a quote, the landscape of the southernmost part of Boone Creek Watershed is characterized by highly dissected, long and narrow ridgetops and shoulder slopes and moderately steep to steep hillsides. 35% of the watershed is comprised of prime farmland. This farmland and other important farmland soils make the watershed suited for beef, cattle, horses, tobacco, corn, soybeans, and vegetables. A direct quote from the United States Department of Agriculture used the Kentucky Division of Water, in cooperation with the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Programs of the National Park Service, conducted an assessment of the rivers in Kentucky in 1992. This report cites Boone Creek as one of the highest valued streams in the state of its ecological resources. The stream is valued for its corridor character, fish resources, scenic features, water quality, and whitewater boating. Also of note are the scenic palisades, cold water aquatic conservation. Boone Creek is considered one of the least impacted, the least impacted, free-flowing, scenic creek in Kentucky, in central Kentucky. In the fall of 1994, a rural historic district was formed containing approximately 3,600 to 4,000 acres. The main community is Athens, where Daniel Boone had a trading post, and his brother Squire Boone is buried in what has become a park just outside of Athens. For all these reasons, and one more, guess what we have beside wild turkey, deer, and cattle? Guess what else we have? We have wildcats, not the blue kind, but the real, real native wildcats. They have been seen, and my Lord, they've been heard, and they have been photographed. So we know they're there. So all these nice tourists might be wanting to watch their behind. So thank you, though, for listening to me. For all these reasons, we, the residents of Boone Creek Watershed, oppose a plan to turn our two-count watershed into a tourist camp. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Gloria Martin, and I live at 7416 Grimes Mill Road, and I actually am one of the property owners right next door to this. I do own property next door. The first that I and many of my neighbors actually knew about this project was when the planning staff sent the notifications in October. And I tell you that because many of us, Knox has already spoken to you, and the Farm Bureau, other representatives and I did meet with Burgess and his attorney. And I really like the idea that Burgess has. I've told him that from the beginning. But I've also told him from the beginning that it's one of those things things that needs to be withdrawn right now, just like Knox told you. We need to look at it. We definitely need to look at a text amendment for this, and there's some very specific reasons for that. As you've already heard, this request is in conflict with numerous of our adopted plans, the least of which is not. It is conflict with our zoning ordinance. It is precedent setting. If you were to, and it doesn't have to do with the project itself, it's what he's asking, if you were to approve a use in the zoning ordinance that is considered a prohibited use, then you have opened the door in every zoning category for prohibited uses, not just in the AR zone, anywhere you would have set that precedent. What I'm going to show you today is what research clearly shows that this is an amusement park. Now, have you all passed out the books for them? You'll each, I have a little booklet to go through with you. I have looked at his consultants and what they do and how they are defined and what they do elsewhere. And I've looked at just the basic, simple idea here, that if it's an amusement ride, it gets a state permit, it gets licensed, and I've also looked at how does the industry itself define it, and are there other amusement parks elsewhere that are identical to what this proposal is before you. If you'll open your book to the very first page, would you give Rochelle one and the staff? And Bruce? Bruce has already said, he didn't know if we'd get into this, but if you open to Bruce's tab 12, we're into it. If you'll open the first page, here's what the research says. We need one more up here, please. Who needs one? We need one for the chair up here, please. Oh, okay. For a short one, can you share? Sure. Okay, thanks. I'm sorry, we had ten, I thought. If you'll open to the first page, here's what the research shows you. Here are the following facts that I will go over for you in this book. The zoning ordinance prohibits amusement parks in the AR zone. The amusement ride industry defines zip lines as amusement rides. The companies building and designing these canopy tour zip line facilities define them as adventure parks, and the term adventure park is used interchangeably with amusement park and theme park within the industry when advertising these identical facilities. The consultant designing this facility is listed as a private company categorized under amusement parks. Amusement rides and other facilities around the United States and elsewhere with the same facilities are termed as amusement parks. The state of Kentucky defines and licenses these rides under that KRS, which you've already heard, as amusement rides. And if you'll turn to the next page, please. I'm going to go over briefly, because they haven't really done this in depth with you all, the request for the conditional use. If you will look on page two there, they're numbered in the bottom right-hand corner of these pages. This request for a commercial outdoor recreational facility in the AR zone, On page one, down there on paragraphs six and seven at the bottom, it tells you, the quote is, to develop a world-class canopy tour over and through the spectacular but previously inaccessible gorge. And it says it would feature a combination of catwalks, suspension bridges, zip lines, tree platforms, and other elevated structures, which it doesn't tell you what they are. And if you go on to the next page on 3, down on paragraph 2, it says, and this tour includes, a ropes challenge course, repelling, and climbing wall. And in addition to the written text, the development plan, which you all have seen today and had copies of before, shows that the children's activity area mentioned on page 2, paragraph 2, also has a ropes challenge course and a climbing wall included. And in addition, the applicant stated to all of us in a December 1st meeting in his attorney's office that the children's activity area would probably also have a small zip line. Now, it's important to know that you've seen the development plan, you've heard it from the staff, and you've heard it from the applicant that there are numerous different elements to this particular request. The staff report for this application says that the facilities have an echo adventure theme. So if you'll go to page four in that first paragraph, there it is, an echo adventure theme with a variety of activities. If you go on down to the second paragraph, it says it will reiterate that it's going to have a canopy tour with the catwalks and the short sections of zip lines. And then the staff also reports that a separate children activity area, the challenge rope course, the climbing wall, if you see that on down through there. This is the important fact for you to see, is that there are multiple elements listed to this commercial facility as stated by the applicant and the staff and on the development plan. It's not just what we're calling a canopy tour, but multiple separate elements within the canopy tour, climbing walls, rope courses, kids' areas, suspension bridges, into the next county. If you will turn to your blue page, you also, while you're turning to get there, you need to remember that this is a large tract of land with a variety of activities with permanent structures. including all of these things that we've just mentioned. Now here's the local LFUCG zoning ordinance. If you will look at page 6, the next page, and 7, the zoning ordinance list in the commercial and non-commercial outdoor recreational facilities, it tells you which are permitted in the AR zone. That's what's in number 6. and on page 7. And I've kind of broken them out so it's a little easier on page 7 there to see that it's zoological gardens, sportsman's farms, native animal game preserves, outdoor rodeos, hunting and trappy, riding stables, campgrounds, and fishing lake, including private clubs for only, only these uses. And it's also stated on that same page, just above that, which has the asterisk, that after January 26 of 1995, a total of 10,000 square feet shall be the maximum allowable for all structures proposed for such uses. That's an important thing to note. If you'll look on page 8, page 8 lists the prohibited uses, And it says all uses other than those listed as principal accessory or conditional uses shall be prohibited. The uses below are provided for illustration purposes and for the purpose of limiting permitted uses and are not intended to be a total listing of all the uses that are prohibited. And if you'll look on page 9, you'll see that very clearly number 6 under prohibited uses is commercial recreational facilities such as amusement parks. The zoning ordinance is clear in the AR zone under that that commercial recreational facilities is a prohibited use. If you will go to number 10, page 10, bottom of that page. In the case where commercial recreational facilities appears to be mentioned in two different sites and could create some confusion about whether or not 8.1.D. 11 is in conflict with 8.1.C. 6, the zoning ordinance in Article 1.5, which I've copied for you there, conflict of ordinance clarifies. It says, whenever these regulations are in conflict with other regulations or laws, the more restrictive shall govern. Well, 8.1.6 specifically lists a commercial recreational facility, such as amusement parks, is prohibited use. And because of that, this should govern. But clearly, a canopy tour, zipline, commercial recreational facility, if it's defined somewhere else, would be very clear. Our ordinance doesn't define adventure park, canopy tour, zipline, amusement park. It does not have that in the definitions. But that Article 1-5 also defers to, as you see there, other regulations or laws which would include local, state, and federal regulations or laws. That's right there on page 10. On page 11, the zoning ordinance in 7-6-B-2 also states that the board shall not possess the power to grant a variance to permit a use of any land, building, or structure which is not permitted by this zoning ordinance in the zone in question. The local zoning ordinance does not define an amusement park, but the state KRS does. if you'll turn to the green tab. The Kentucky Revised Statutes. If you will go to page 14, there it is. The Kentucky Revised Statute, which Knox has already alluded to and Don Todd alluded to, does define amusement ride or attractions, and they do it in two different categories. The first is any mechanized device or combination of devices which carry passengers along, around, or over a fixed or restricted course for the purpose of giving its passengers amusement, pleasure, thrill, or excitement. And then there's the second part of that. Any building or structure around, over, or through which people may walk, climb, slide, jump, or move that provides amusement, pleasure, thrills, or excitement. And on down on that page 14, it also tells you that it also allows the commissioner, quote, by administrative regulation to designate other rides and attractions that are not included within that definition. And it also, on page 15, if you'll go to that next page, also states that ASTM standards are to be met for all amusement rides and attractions, and that ASTM standards means the latest standards and specifications as set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials. So if you look on page 16, that tells you what their scope is. there's the ASTMs, Amusement Ride and Devices. And the scope that they have is guides for amusement rides, definitions, standard developments for the global amusement sector. On page 17, the next page, the American Society for Testing and Materials on that page very clearly in their brand new practice for special requirements for zip lines, rope courses, and challenge courses, list these as amusement rides. They have established new criteria, new practice, new special requirements for zip lines, ropes courses, challenge courses, quote, when specifically intended for concession, commercial, recreation, or amusement purposes. So there's no doubt in their scope that zip lines, rope courses, and challenge courses are amusement rides. Now, on the very next page, page 19, when I was looking at this, and I've had some experience with this in the past because of the Bluegrass Lions Fair. So I already thought I understood this before this came up. I talked to Nicole Liberto. She is the attorney for the Kentucky Department of Agriculture in Frankfort, and that's what you have on page 18. She confirms in her correspondence of November 10th that these structures do come under the jurisdiction of Kentucky Department of Agriculture, per that KRS statute, for inspection and permitting as amusement rides. So if KRS says go by the ASTM's latest standards and specs, then these are the standards and specs for their amusement rides. And that's what she says in that memo. Inspection fees are assessed per device and are detailed in that KAR. And what you have on the very next page is, page 19 and 20, are that 302 KAR that she has addressed in her memo. Any entity wishing to commercially install a single amusement structure or multiple amusement structures grouped into a single facility within the state of Kentucky is regulated under that KAR. Inspection and operation of the amusement rides or amusement attractions, the administrative regulation establishes safety guidelines for the operation and inspection of these amusement rides, and it's all listed right there. The owner must apply. You can see that. Let me just say before I go on to the application that if you look on page 19, they've told you that some rides children can ride has a height requirement of 42 inches. They also tell you that a major ride, this is on the top of that paragraph down in 6 and 7, a major ride has height requirements. It goes on down to section three that each amusement ride and attraction shall be individually inspected. And it shows you right there that climbing walls, number five, is one of those things. And that major rides, those above that had a height requirement, also have an individual. And it says that any amusement ride or attraction not listed in this section, and I will allude to this again later, but that's where zip lines and ropes challenge courses fall, and that's where the commissioner had the right to designate other rides, which he has done, and they fall into that category. If you will look on page 21, page 21 is what the owner and operator of an amusement ride, whether they have one or multiple, you will see on the last page of that application, has many lines. you have to fill out each one of those lines for each individual thing. Every single zip line, every challenge course, every single one of those things that falls under their jurisdiction is to be listed on that. So each amusement ride has to be listed on the application. That same section, further states, if you'll look on page 24, 22 there, it tells you that you have to have insurance. The applicant has to provide a certificate of insurance for the minimum amount of $500,000, and that's per incident, per coincidence, as prescribed by that KRS. So this is the page where each individual ride has to be listed, where every single thing that is in part of the canopy tour or beyond has to be listed. If you look on page 25, one of the inspectors, Bob Henderson, emailed this list to me. In talking to them, I said, well, what are the like amusement park ride facilities that you inspect and look at from this standpoint? And this is what he mailed me. The Red River Gorge advertised itself as a zipline canopy tour. It has weight limits, age recommendation, you pay a fee. The Mammoth Cave Adventures down there advertised itself again. It's another world-class canopy zipline tour. It is outside the national park. It advertises the exact same thing, weight limit, age limit, fee. Black Mountain Zipline, that's run by the Harlan County Recreation Board. They advertise the two-hour canopy tour has age requirements and a fee. Appalachian on the next page has a fee. The Louisville Zoo is run by the zoo. It has weight and height limits, separate fee from the zoo admission. And you can see all the things they have, climbing walls, ziplines, ropes courses. The Mega Zips Underground is 17 miles underground in one of the old mines underneath the city of Louisville. Eastern Kentucky has the Challenge Course. It's controlled by the college, considered to be on state property. And the Life Adventure Center in Versailles is on a 500-acre farm with farming and ag-related educational programs that assist it. Asbury is on college-owned property and controlled by them. After he sent this to me, I wrote back to that inspector. You can see on the next page, 28, that said, thanks so much for sending me all the information about the zip lines in Kentucky. I did look all of them up online. Are these the ones that you inspect as amusement rides under that KRS that we discussed? And he wrote back, yes, they are. Where they're permitted, where they are permitted, is strictly by individual county zoning. The state is not interested in what the zoning is. It could be the downtown Louisville Zoo. It can be underground. It can be Harlan County. They don't care who runs them. They don't care what the zone is. They are inspecting them for safety. The zoning and where they are permitted is left up to us to designate by our zoning ordinance. So, again, they don't care what zone they're in, but it depends on us. But they do think that everything that is defined under that KRS, they do want to inspect and have a safety, and they expect it to abide by our local laws. In fact, there are some jurisdictions around the country that do have extra safety beyond what they require. If you look on page 29, after he wrote to me, I wrote back. In the information you sent me about zip lines in Kentucky, I noticed that some of them are part of a canopy tour. And the canopy tours were made up of different components, which included the zip lines, sky bridges, challenge rope courses, climbing wall tower, etc. It was my understanding when reading the statute, which governs them and talking to you, that each of these elements required a separate permit as a separate ride. I did get the application form where each ride has to be listed individually. Does each one of these require a separate liability insurance policy as well, or is the canopy tour with all these separate elements covered under just one liability policy? Thanks again, blah, blah, blah. And he answers and says, they do require separate stickers and payment, but they can be listed on the same insurance policy. Now, I've talked to two other inspectors, too. I actually went over there and had a meeting with these fellows, and they gave me a good example, which is these inflatable things that have popped up around the country like Monkey Joe's. Now, if you don't have little kids or grandchildren, you may never have been to Monkey Joe's, but Monkey Joe's and that kind of facility is a big warehouse or an open space where they have big inflatables. And the kids go in, climb steps, slide down, get off, go to the next one, bounce and jump, get off, go to the next one. The example that they gave me is it's just like the inflatables at Monkey Joe's. That every single ride that has an entrance or an exit, a beginning or an end, if you get on a zip line and clip on and you zip down that line and you get off and walk or go to another platform and you get on and you zip again, you're on two separate rides. Each one of those zip lines would be listed individually, just like at Monkey Joe's. There has to be a start and a finish, an entrance, and an exit. Now, if you will go to the yellow page. The LFUCG zoning ordinance, if you look on page 36, this is important because it does not specifically define commercial recreational facility, as I've already said, or Echo Adventure, which is mentioned in our applicant's application. It doesn't mention Adventure Park or Amusement Park, but it does give a definition for structure, and that is important because the structure is anything constructed. I think it was on page 32. Excuse me. I gave you the wrong page. It does give a definition for structure. That's anything constructed, the use of which requires permanent or continuous location on the ground, or attached to something having permanent location to the ground. The numerous elements described as part of these proposals, both the canopy tour and the other elements, are structures which are permanently attached to the ground. Now, I'm not going to go through all those definitions that are there below that on page 30, But I will tell you that on page 33, the adventure park industry does define it at the bottom of that page. They consider a canopy tour as a specific type of adventure park. If you'll go to page 34, the contractors of Adventure Park Industry have defined it, and they even provide photographs on page 34 and 35 of the various types of what they consider to be adventure parks. And if you will look on page 36, this is a picture you have already seen today. On their website, the Canopy Tours, you have met David Brassfield, who's talked about this, and I think it was one of the pictures that he's the one who showed you. Steps and the Canopy Tours listed there, that group involved in the applicant's recreation facility, has 62 online photographs illustrating adventure parks, Canopy Tours elements that they have designed or built. So right off their website are the following pictures. Now, if you look at page 36, it talks about adventure parks. It talks about canopy tour and adventure park elements. And below that, you can faintly see where the boxes were, and that's where those 30-something pictures or 60-something pictures were. On page 37 is showing you where that particular ride begins over there at that tower. and when you get to the next one, that would have ended. On page 38, you would see a zip line. On page 39, again, a zip line. On page 40, the suspension bridges. I would assume that the ones over Boone Creek, since this is their company and this is the sort of thing they designed, that would be similar to one of those. The adventure park elements, all of these they have listed. that on page 41 is the challenge element. On page 42 is another one of their adventure park challenge elements. On page 43 is another one of their climbing tower challenge elements that's an adventure park element. All of these came straight from their website. And on page 44 is another, it was one of the platforms from those pictures for the adventure park elements. I've heard this presentation several times now from the applicant, both at neighborhood meetings and in meetings we've had. And the proposed commercial recreational facility has stated that it will provide numerous activities, numerous structures, numerous facilities, in addition to the canopy tour. and they've already told you in your information you have that it's projected to have between 12,000 and 20,000 annual participants. And therefore, that proposal definitely meets the person who's designing its industry definition for an adventure park. So if you'll go to purple. The legal definitions from other states in Canada is what is here. This is starting on page 45. Kentucky is not alone in amusement ride or amusement park legislation. If you will look on page 47, you will see a page that has come from the California Research Bureau that has worked on this. And they will tell you, in fact, the California legislative research shows that 45 of 50 states do have some type of legislation, some more than others. But if you will, I'm just going to show you this briefly so you'll have an idea. When you look at the next page, 48, you have Ohio. It defines amusement ride. It defines permanent amusement ride, which goes right to the LFUC's structure, the definition for permanence. If you look on page 49, West Virginia, they even define zip line. It even puts the inspection fee in a special fund. If you'll turn to page 50, you'll see that in West Virginia, the money goes in the amusement ride and amusement attraction safety fund. If you look on page 51, Virginia's text is very similar to Kentucky's. Amusement device, their definition is very much like ours. If you look on page 52, Indiana defines device and amusement park. They say an amusement park means a tract or area used principally as a permanent location for amusement devices, rides, and structures. The request before you is for at least 150 acres. So there are a lot of residential subdivisions in Fayette County that may not cover 150 acres. If you look on page 53, Missouri, amusement ride, amusement device, they define climbing walls. Page 54, North Carolina, and this is where Navitat is located. And Navitat, one of the places that we've already had mentioned today, is one of the locations that one of our neighborhood association members has actually attended and we'll say something about later. But they actually talk about amusement devices. They actually give you exactly what Kentucky says, entrances and exits. If you go to page 55, they define amusement park almost identical to the other two states. Pennsylvania, amusement park, amusement ride, almost identical to what Kentucky has, North Carolina and Indiana. Minnesota does it, amusement ride and rider. and even in Canada. Canada has amusement device, and if you'll go to page 60, they define zip line, and if you go to page 61, what they've said here is almost exactly what West Virginia and the other states say about amusement rides and how it's regulated, and this particular thing is the insurance that they require as well. Now, to the red page. The Boone Creek Adventures, just to be specific about this canopy tour, if you will go to page 65, the booklet that you saw the cover of and some of those pages they have shown before, The Boone Creek Adventures describes in that handout booklet the proposed two-and-a-half-hour canopy tour as including a series of stages, a combination of zip lines, aerial bridges, staircases. This description is exactly what you just read about zip line riders and harnesses and trolleys for the amusement rides in all of those other places. And that is the pages 65 and 66 came directly out of that booklet that they passed out. The Canopy Tour industry defines all this. The Canopy Tour, KRS, defines how this works in, the definition for amusement rides. And in the literature, Canopy Tours, Inc. goes into some detail about that. If you look on page 67, this is an important page for you to look at. On page 67, this is the Navitat Canopy Adventure. And it says halfway down there, a true canopy tour. And at the bottom it tells you this came right off the Navitat website. Navitat has two of these, one in North Carolina and one in California. And if you'll turn to page 68, you will see that the Navitat Canopy Adventure in Wrightwood, California is listed category an amusement park. Page 69 tells you again about Navitat being a tree-based adventure. And then when you come to page 70, today you have heard from the person who's the designer of this project who is incorporated in Michigan. And Steps, Inc., on page 70, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is, quote, a private company categorized under amusement ride, business category, amusement, recreation, services, and there is his name. On Canopy Tours, Inc., on page 71, again, Steps talks about a pure canopy tour, and it's listed, as you can see at the bottom, Adventure Park. On page 72, the examples, you've already seen part of those photographs, listed as an adventure park built by steps. And on page 73, you have the amusement industry itself defining zipline and these devices. Page 74, Navitat tells you it's two wild rides. And the next page, 75, shows you the pictures. Page 76 tells you that Navitat has a nighttime tour. And I'm going to tell you, if you're doing this at night, you might be doing it for adventure or amusement, but you're not doing it to look at the trees or the wildlife because you cannot see it. And the amusement park on page 71, other places that have these, is what I'm pointing out to you, canopy tours that meet this exact definition. On page 77 is Dolly Woods. Her Sky Zip is one of the new rides, and if you look on page 78, it uses the exact same lingo as you've heard today. Multiple station zipline attractions. Landscape that you have never seen before. Adventure, blah, blah, blah. And you've already seen the pictures on page 79 and 80 today. The applicant has already shown you that. page 81 came straight from the booklet. And what that shows you is there is a height and weight requirement. The challenge rope courses on page 83 gives you high and low ropes courses. In the Wikipedia, which is following on pages 84 and 85, if you'll look at the bottom of page 85, definitions from that were written by Mike Smith and David Brassfield. And it tells you that the definitions here were done by him, and if these facilities, as you've already seen, meet the KRS definition, which states that any building or structure around, over, through which people may walk, climb, slide, jump, or move that provides amusement pressure or excitement is deemed to be an amusement ride. If you look on page 86, when you go to Dollywood's website under amusement rides and attractions, you will see the new Adventure Mountain. This is a challenge ropes course, which has height requirements. You can see it down there in the bottom right-hand corner. 42 inches, under 48 inches must be accompanied by someone 16 or older. And if you turn on page 87, 88, and 89, these are challenge rope courses. Now, what we've seen today are in the trees and seem like small little things. But these three pages, why would I show you something this elaborate? The reason is, the point is, they are amusement rides. You harness up, you latch on, you run through, you climb over, you do all those things. as the definition told you. And when you look at this, you realize these are amusement rides. But what you all have never really seen, or the neighborhood, and all the meetings that we've had, there's been no square footage given. There's been no elevation, no definite sight, no dimensions about each one of these individual structures that make up this local amusement, adventure, echo theme park. So if you were to do this, it would be precedent setting. But number two, you're opening the door for an unlimited, undescribed, you don't know how many zip lines. You don't know how big the ropes courses will be. When you look at the development plan on that sheet, I don't think you realize the size or the impact it could have on the area. it does cover a very large area for a commercial recreational facility for anybody's commercial recreational facility when i looked up dollywood they don't have but 125 acres we're talking 100 and they first i heard 152 and now it's 165 and now we're talking about spreading it some part of it to clark county which the clark county people are distressed about not having any input or notification about this at all. And I think that you need to understand that it is huge. And if Clark County were included in this proposal with another 300 or 400, whatever acreage finally gets decided on, if you've got 150 or 60, whatever the number is, in Fayette County, and another 300 or 400 in Clark County, that is a huge amusement park. Kings Island only has 360 acres, so you're talking a huge landmass with multiple structures on something like this. I think it's a kind of size and commercial recreational facility. It meets the definition of amusement park. It's in a very environmentally sensitive area. You don't know the exact size and number, and I think that back to what we've all said, we'd like for him to withdraw it. We wanted to work with him. We wanted to work on a text amendment. That offer still stands. There's the concern. If you look on page 90, here are some of the findings of facts. That the ordinance prohibits amusement parks. The state clearly defines it. The state does oversee it for structure, for safety. They don't care about zoning. That's up to us. Our zoning ordinance prohibits it. The proposed facility, as defined by the industry and other states and Canada, says it's an amusement park. The industry defines it. The consultant, designer, and builder is listed under amusement parks. It's clearly an amusement park. It's a prohibited use in the AR zone, and the board really doesn't have the legislative authority to pass to grant a prohibited use. And if you did, that's what I'm telling you, it would open the door for every prohibited use in every zone. So please, please do not do this. Thank you. Thank you. I want to ask our legal a question. We're dealing with a whole lot of apples and oranges here in this particular situation. And while I may agree with some of the things you've said I disagree with some other things that you've said regarding this. It is very clear that we are talking about an amusement ride. However, I haven't been convinced at this point in time that we are dealing with an amusement park. So are we doing an amusement park or are we dealing with an adventure park along with this ride? I think that that is in essence for you to decide. I will say that all of the state statutes and regulations that have been quoted to you have been definitions for the purpose of safety regulation. I have not seen anything in the cited statutes or regulations that in any way reflected that these definitions were intended to be used for zoning purposes. I haven't seen anything that has appeared in KRS Chapter 100 defining an amusement park for zoning purposes. I could not tell whether the list of states, other states, that had definitions of amusement parks or amusement rides, whether those came from zoning regulations or whether those came from safety regulations. I saw some peripheral language that appeared to me that it was dealing more with safety issues and what rides should be subject to safety inspections i think another thing that struck me is it defines an amusement ride i don't think that for zoning purposes one amusement ride would necessarily make an amusement park and i think that's why this is something that this board is going to have to consider in terms of what does this proposed use with its individual characteristics most resemble I don't think necessarily the acreage has anything to do with it either. You couldn't say a 200-acre national park, but because it's so huge, it becomes an amusement park. So I don't think it's acreage. I think it's what's being done there and what does this body feel it most resembles. I did notice when, and I'm not sure what kind of meaning or interpretation you would want to attach to this, But under the conditional uses, it talks about commercial or non-commercial outdoor recreational facilities. Under the prohibited, it doesn't have the word outdoor in there. Now, at the same time, an amusement park is probably more outdoor than the bowling alley and the other indoor uses that they mention. But it appears that in some way, shape, or form, a distinction was considered between indoor and outdoor. So I think probably you need to look at the outdoor recreational uses that can be conditional uses, look at those that are prohibited, and I think what's being proposed here falls somewhere in the category where you're going to have to say what does it most closely resemble in impact, in effect, in purpose, whatever. That's why it's a conditional use. And I have another question for you. You look at the individual characteristics and you put whatever conditions on it you think are necessary if you choose to approve it. It gives you some latitude in that regard. In your legal opinion, does this particular situation require a text amendment? I don't think it requires a text amendment. I think that in your adopted findings, which I think what the staff has proposed kind of make the distinction by describing the characteristics, you can distinguish it from a prohibited amusement park. I'm not saying that somewhere down the road, if we get more of these kinds of applications and if they become more complex, maybe someday a text amendment will be needed to determine when a use crosses the line to being more like an amusement park or more like an outdoor recreational facility, I think for purposes of this hearing, you could determine that you have enough information to make the decision on this use as to which it most closely resembles. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Simpson, some of the issues that have been brought up obviously have to deal with safety and sanitary disposal, police and fire access has been a big concern of the opposition here today. Can you address some of those for us? We haven't finished our case yet. We still have more presenters. My apologies, Mr. Todd. We will allow you to. Mr. Todd, your suit looks good. I want you to understand we're going to take care of you. So go ahead on and bring your people up here as they are. We'll get to Mr. Simpson today or next month. With all due respect, he took two hours and we're at an hour and a half. An hour and 20 minutes right now. We're trying to be fair and quick. Good afternoon. My name is Anne Graff. I live in the old Richmond Road corridor, and I'm here to voice my opposition to this commercial recreational development request. My husband and I went on a Navitat canopy tour along with six other guests in Asheville, North Carolina, in May of 2010. There is no doubt it was a lot of fun and it was exciting. Navitat was listed in the notebook that was distributed as having similar best practices for canopy tours. I want to relate to the board that it was more of an adventure type of a ride rather than an educational nature tour. The experience that we went on lasted approximately three and a half hours. I can assure you this was not a quiet walk in the woods. There were ten zip lines. Initially we did short runs, and then towards the end we went on a long run that was 1,100 feet in length, where it seemed like we were just flying across over the trees. In between zip line runs, the guide would unhook us from the cable, and then we walked to another tree platform where we climbed up and got hooked onto another cable for another ride. We also did rappelling, and then we also walked across suspension sky bridges to get to another location where we could ride another zip line. There definitely was that rush of adrenaline as we flew over the treetops and we glimpsed at the view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The scenery was fleeting as the speed made the view a very quick one. There was limited talk about nature. However, the overriding memory was the acceleration, the altitude, and the adventure that was created by being suspended up to 200 feet in the air at high speed. I can tell you about the adventures of riding ziplines in the Canopy Tour, but I really can't tell you much of anything from an educational value at all. Based on my personal experience at Navitat, this was more of an outdoor adventure with amusement rides in a natural setting. I couldn't tell you in good conscience that this is ecotourism or good for the environment. This type of commercial recreational activity would not be good for Boone Creek Gorge, and I encourage you to vote against bringing this type of business to our neighborhood. Thank you. My name is Jim Lurton. I live on Turner Station Road, about two miles north of the proposed facility. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today, and I would like to put this text into the record. The Zoning Regulations Article 7-6A-2 states that in approving a conditional use permit, the Board shall find that the public facilities and services that will be needed are or will soon be adequate to serve the proposed use. The Board shall give consideration to the road system, sewage disposal facilities, utilities, fire and police protection, and other services and facilities as are relevant to the proposed use. And the 2007 comprehensive plan says service area standards for fire engine companies are one and a half road miles from the station. I'm not going to quibble about a half a mile. The fire station is two miles away. That's a trivial difference in my opinion. But water availability is based on the distance to the closest fire hydrant with 1,000 feet being the minimum standard for rural applications. That said, what are the facts? The nearest fire station is approximately two miles away, and no EMS unit exists at that station. The nearest EMS unit is at Richmond Road near the Kentucky American Water Plant or on Maple Leaf off Manowar. Both of these are approximately 10 miles away, yielding response times of 15 to 20 minutes driving time and whatever notification time they would need, but I think you're clearly looking at 20 to 30 minutes. The nearest fire hydrant is approximately one mile away near the intersection of McCall's Mill and Old Richmond Road. To make matters worse, all the hydrants in the area are coded red, meaning the flow is less than 500 gallons per minute, which is considered inadequate by national standards and by local personnel. Based on those facts, I had a discussion with the firemen at the Cleveland Road Fire Station. They concur that red hydrants are inadequate to fight a fire. That became obvious last year when a house on Turner Station burned to the ground. The fire department had to run a tanker brigade from the hydrant at the station, and they were unable to refill trucks at a rate equal to the water discharged onto the fire. We had an entertaining night on Turner Station. The number of fire units on scene was stunning, but the water availability was not there. Neither fire engines nor ambulances can access the Boone Creek Gorge where this facility is proposed. These are not off-road capable vehicles. Firemen would need to hand carry a maximum of 1,000 feet of hose into the gorge from an engine located on Old Ridge Road or Durban Lane as appropriate. 1,000 feet of hose does not appear to cover the entire area proposed for the site, and a hand laying of hose represents a serious delay in response time, according to the fireman. Accident or illness victims would need treatment by EMS personnel who walk or are transported by unspecified means into the gorge. There is no specified means to transport a victim out of the gorge. Presumably, that would be an on-site, real-time plan, since no plan is evident either from the applicant or the fire department. Sufficient clearance to land a helicopter is not obvious, and the presence of zipline cables represents an additional hazard. The fire department does own an emergency rescue vehicle known as Rescue 1, and it has a trained rescue team. This is located either at Southland or downtown. Apparently, it has been at both locations. I believe it's at Southland now, and certainly would not be adequate for critical medical rescue due to the distance and time involved. To further complicate matters, the firemen at Cleveland Road commented on upcoming fire staffing and overtime reduction planning. To be fair and honest, I interpreted their comments as not yet a firm plan, but the understanding is that there will be a rotation of units offline to accommodate staff vacations with minimum overtime impact. This vacation planning, of course, coincides with what would be the peak use of the proposed facility, the summer months. The firemen indicated that the current information suggests that the Cleveland Road Fire Station could be offline as often as one day in every four days. Thus, even the current inadequate level of fire and EMS support would become much worse during peak need times. There appears from a public information meeting held by the applicant, actually two of them, and I appreciate him holding those, there appears from those meetings and from the BOA staff report that no specific acceptable sewage plan exists for the site, Only a promise from the applicant to work with the health department. The environmental lady behind me, who seemed quite confident to me, I congratulate her on being good, went over that very quickly, as did the applicant in the two meetings. I need to remind no one that Boone Creek discharges into the Kentucky River approximately one-half mile upstream of Kentucky Americans' water intake. The applicant estimates 20,000 plus or minus visitors per year, and these surely would be seasonal, resulting in a pretty high sewage volume at certain times. In spite of the applicant's promise to work it out, no magic small volume solution to sewage handling exists to adequately solve this problem. There are no standards for so-called composting toilets, just manufacturer's hype. The physical collection of waste from numerous sites is messy, smelly, and difficult, especially on a site that is said will have no roads. The applicant has cited cruise ship sewage handling as an example. In fact, cruise ships are the center of a major controversy for ocean pollution. From the website Oceana.org, currently lax state and federal laws allow cruise ships to dump untreated sewage from toilets once the ships are three miles from shore. Within three miles, cruise ships can dump sewage from toilets that has been treated by marine sanitation devices which have been shown to be inadequate. I bring that up because at one of the public meetings, he used that type of treatment as an example of what might be done. There are reams of corroborating information available for what I just told you about the cruise ship problem. This proposal does not meet any common sense standard for the presence of public fire, medical, or sewage facilities. As a result, the board cannot find that adequate public facilities exist or are projected in the future. Thank you very much. We have more Christmas presents. What the hell have we got here? Good afternoon. My name is Alston Kerr. I live at 5660 Old Richmond Road. And before I start today, let me tell you something. I spend a lot of time in the volunteer world, and what you all do right here is unparalleled. So I do thank you. A little bit for the record about this project that is coming forth. Frankly, the project is not. bad project but as I sat at the meeting of the Jean Ferris winery I said to Mr. Kerry you know what in order to get this to go forward we need to put it in a box better we need to define our lines better and I said two of the things that are going to be of most interest to this neighborhood are one lodging and two agritourism well you know they've taken the agricultural market off because they couldn't define that but in some ways they have not defined the structure requirement as set forth in our zoning. So let me say before we start that the private anglers club conditional use is now incorporated as part of the commercial recreational vehicle. The 23 acre tract at 8291 Old Richmond Road was the conditional use site requested by the Boone Creek Properties LLC for private angler clubs in 2000. And you all can see that outlined and it's outlined in the bold line. Sorry, you cannot see the red. The 2011 applicant states, the Boone Creek project will also increase its available lodging options in order to accommodate those who might want a more intimate experience than the existing lodge. You will see this on page four, your page four of his application. Also, on page four, the staff report, but it is page five to you, This recreational facility is intended to operate in association with the Boone Creek's Angler Club. So, in fact, the Angler's Club is to be considered a part of this commercial recreational facility. The current development plan in 2011, the exact same track, is proposed to the Boone Creek Adventures to incorporate the Angler's Club with the commercial recreational facility. On that track, the development plan includes, and you have heard this numerous times, of recreational facilities, county tours, children's area, hiking trails, multi-use pedestrian bridges, welcome centers, and raised tinted platforms. Half of the property, you will note, in the 2,000 request for the Anglers Club on the current development plan, is taken up by this present request for a conditional use. you will see the cross-hashing portions on your plan. There seems to be, as best I can tell, no way to calculate the exact number of square feet proposed, as nothing shown on the development plan for any of the structural elements within the canopy tours, I won't list them again, is attached to it. And you can again see that on page two. According, as best again I can read, to our zoning AR ordinance, which you all will find on page three outline, The square footage for all structures on this 23-acre track has to be calculated as part of the recreational facility and stay within the 10,000 square foot maximum. This whole 10,000 square foot maximum limit really concerns me because it seems to leapfrog. The staff truly didn't know how to measure it, and you can understand why all of us might have a problem and be confused. An assessment of that limitation as it applies to this recreational facility is somewhat complicated by the fact that there are three separate parcels of land involved. You will find that on page 7. That is what the staff says. Okay, my first concern here is that for any of the following conditional uses established after January 26, 1995, A total of 10,000 square feet shall be the maximum for all structures proposed for such uses. Okay? Seems to me that is pretty straightforward. The ordinance says any conditional use. The ordinance says total of 10,000 square feet maximum. The ordinance says shall, and the ordinance says for all structures. What's a structure? The zoning ordinance also defines a structure. anything constructed, the use of which requires permanent or continuous location on the ground or attached to something having permanent location on the ground. That's their definition, not mine. All of the buildings on the Angler Club property, which is now incorporated as part of this recreational facility, all the structures proposed for this use, including the raised platforms attached to the ground. And as you all have seen in Gloria's very lengthy report, all those catwick walks, suspension bridges, climbing walls, zip lines, et cetera, shall be added up and shall not exceed over 10,000 square feet. This plan is so very vague on that point. We don't know what the square footage is of any of the tented for the tent's tending structure, nor do we know for the zip line structures, nor do we know for the suspension bridges. we were not able to calculate that and it's a moving target which is why the staff can't calculate it either there's no way for anybody to know exactly what is being proposed because nothing is marked on the development plan this ladies and gentlemen I'm sorry leaves a huge open door for those of us that work so hard on our comprehensive plan and our rural land management plan and And it does have precedent-setting ramifications. My second concern, and I'm almost finished, is that in the staff report, basically what they said was the total for all structures shall exceed 10,000 square feet, and that limit will not be exceeded for any of the three parcels. Basically, they're saying you have three parcels. So therefore, you can exceed the 10,000 square feet. That is not what your zoning ordinance says. It talks specifically about a conditional use, which is what Mr. Carey has applied for today. It doesn't seem to make any difference how many parcels or how big the track of land to be involved in. So the 10,000 square feet to go with a specific conditional use is what I'm talking about right now. And if I use that as logic, okay, an applicant could come to you all and could have not owned the property but leased property and have a half a dozen small properties in any one of our rural developments and ask for if he had 60,000 square feet. You could put a dormitory, a church with nothing other than a septic tank or sewage. As we've already heard, that is a major problem. So if I use their argument, one lot is 10,000 square feet, 10 lots is 100,000 square feet, 20 is 200. I think you all get my point here. But basically, it is just like the first concern I have. We have not put this in a box. We need more careful definition of exactly how many square feet these structures so that we can exist within the current zoning laws that we have on the books. I didn't make them. It's just what they are. We need to live within those zoning laws. In my great tenure with the state, I've spent a lot of time with ecotourism, adventure tourism, agritourism, and this project is a good one. It is just like Knox said. It's a little premature and not well-defined. I would hope, sincerely, that Mr. Carey could come back, if you all see fit, to deny this conditional use today. I would hope that we could come back in front of you with a very defined plan to exactly what is going to happen So that it can be approved in the future. Thank you Mr. Todd have you got other people well before they come up here. I would like to see both the attorneys up here, please Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Dr. Andy Roberts. I live at 6921 Old Richmond Road. I farm about 75 acres there. I have a horse farm. and I will not insult the distinguished members' ability to read by just reading from the notes, but I think everybody in this room probably has a very deeply vested interest in agritourism. We want to see that flourish in that area of Fayette County, and that's been set up. We have a KRS statute that says exactly what that is. for those of us in the agricultural business it's the production of food fiber or flowers basically that's that's what it is and this is not that and just to give you a thought relative to some other things that have come up here on my 75 acres if i endeavored to come in here and ask for a conditional use permit to give pony rides you'd probably consider that and if i stretched it a little further and we're going to give pony rides and I'm going to serve Kentucky's finest bourbon on this land using scantily clad young people. You would say I am endeavoring to put a strip club on an agricultural piece of land and we can't do that. One other thought, if I also endeavored that the beautiful view of Elk Lake Gorge from my farm. I had the great idea that I would buy just one Ferris wheel. And from 10 stories up, you could see my horses. Yes, sir. You're not questioning the intelligence of this board, are you? No, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Well, good evening now, I guess. I'm William Brown. I live on 823 McCall's Mill Road in Lexington, Kentucky. And my wife, Melissa, is president of the Boone Creek Neighborhood Association. She could not be here today, so I'm submitting her information. I'm not going to read it to you. It's a fairly lengthy document, but I will hit the highlights for you. The main points are that Boone Creek Adventures can't comply with the plans set forth to guide the stewardship of lands in Fayette County. We've heard about the comprehensive plan where it fails to meet at least five of the 11 major goals. Green Space Plan. Boone Creek is designated as one of the focus areas, and the intention is that there is no intention for public access. This is obviously public access. The Greenway Master Plan, Boone Creek is designated as a Greenway Corridor. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, there's no new parks that are recommended for the Boone Creek area. And the Rural Land Management Plan, where Boone Creek is designated as a priority site, and the land should remain in a natural state with a minimum of intrusions. Boone Creek Adventures can't prove that they won't have an adverse impact on both the property and the surrounding area. And I think it's for those reasons that Boone Creek Neighborhood Association asks that you deny the request. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm Charles Martin. I live at 7416 Grimes Mill Road in Lexington, 40515. And I discovered the Boone Creek Gorge in 1975. My first visits back to this city. and it in part determined my plans to move my family here. We live on the creek, and we have since 1980, my wife and children. And my son lives there now in farms, and his children are there. So we have three generations and 30 years' experience with the creek. we like a lot of other people know how special the creek is not really an unknown entity over the years we've done the same thing that mary wharton did we put the same exact easements on our initial property that she did um let me show that the number one just a page and then over the following years we added conservation easements over the acreage and so that now it's some 530 acres of basically a nature sanctuary we have certainly deer in Turkey but grouse and river otter and beaver and bobcat kittens and we've tried to do our conservation according to that as have other people in the area the Browns and Parks and Mormons and the King properties in Clark County so we actually have over a thousand acres that's protected and protected in a way that the comprehensive plan has suggested. The next page to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural areas, particularly environmentally sensitive areas. The next one, particularly Cleveland branch of Boone Creek a segment of Boone Creek with its unique geologic formations and a petrified waterfall next this waterfall the picture is not very good but it it falls into many of the advertisements for this Boone Creek adventures and it was actually on the Sierra Club's front page of their last publication. The next page. This shows properties that are protected. I don't know if you can see the area in question and let's see I don't think you can see the I'm sorry oh there you go I just need to yeah there the the red dot that's that is the the property in question this area right here 20 acres plus the other acres that could be added plus Clark County land. And this is other lands that are protected all the way up the creek from Cleveland Branch to Boggs Fork and up that. We had a recent correspondence that said that we wanted to, the people in the Old Richmond Road neighborhood, but wanted to save the creek just for ourselves. We wanted to keep the gorge to ourselves and not let anyone other than a few landowners enjoy the beauty. That really couldn't be further from the truth. I've been there 30 years, and we and neighbors have supported bike riding, hikers, joggers, walkers, not just on the roads but on the farms, horseback riding. And we've done it all for free. Individuals, school scouts, a lot of people, nonprofits want to use the farm for this activity or that. And we've done that repeatedly over the years. And we never charged anybody a penny for any of it. Fishing. A lot of people have stocked the creek with fish. I've done it. Lee Gregg did it. The Sladons did it. vons and we never charged anyone to fish there and we never complained when the members of the anglers club fished on us though they were you could say charging other people to fish on property that they didn't own there have been some liability issues people repelling on a neighbor's cliff in the middle of the night falling a bunch of college kids alcohol could have been a factor but the parents wanted to know whose property it was a drowning those parents wanted to know where was he when he drowned what property did he die on we've had some camping and fire building during no fire times hunters and dogs leaving wounded animals on the farm and we had to get the state police involved when we discovered a substantial marijuana operation on the back of the farm. These are all reasons for concern. We know how unique and special it is. We know how environmentally sensitive it is, as do a lot of people. All the plans that discuss it and talk about it, the need for protection and preservation back that up. The gorges finally began to recover from past human abuses. It was logged heavily in the 1800s. The blue sky and the septic system issues are improving. People are not using it so much as a dump. This property actually is privately owned from the river to the headwaters at Winchester Road. It's not a proper or one property owner's ability. You can't really just promote it or to commercialize it. one person can't be let to commercialize it and go against the years of carefully adopted plans. And this request is not one that helps or protects the gorge. It's a money-making commercial venture. It's a money-making commercial venture. We're not doing this for education. This is not a school. It's a money-making project. And it basically helps financially an absentee, a landlord, surely somebody who truly loves the land, but he doesn't. He's not there. Actually, there's not another non-agriculturally commercial business in the gorge from the river to Winchester Road except his. And, you know, it was never intended for the fishing club to become commercial public lodging and party venue, but that's what it is. So serious environmentalists will hate what this request could do to the creek. It will have a negative impact on the floor and the fauna. It can't really be controlled. Traffic in the creek can't be controlled when you have a few people belonging to the fishing club, let alone when you have 10,000 or 20,000 probable strangers. Every law in the book says it's not a good idea for the Boone Creek watershed. And if I could have 30 seconds to just show a little video. Turn the lights down. This is what we're talking about. Preserving. Everyone's invited. Won't work. If you can, it's okay. If you can just imagine being in the creek by yourself with no one there and seeing what's there. And then imagine the effects of 1,000 people, 10,000 people, 20,000 people. Imagine zip lines, suspension bridges across the gorge over your head. I think it's a detraction. So please, I'm begging you, please, to vote no for this project. Is that all you have, Mr. Todd? Those are all the people that I have scheduled, but there are other people who have an interest that I have no control over. what we're going to do for the fairness of both sides of this room. I've got board members that have to leave here, and I do not want to put ourselves or you in a position where we have to make a decision without having all seven members sitting on this case. We're going, and I've talked to both lawyers, attorneys, We're going to ask our staff to make sure that we know who all has come before us with their presentations today so that we do not have to repeat this. We're going to ask for a continuance of this case until January the 27th, at which time we will finish you. If you're finished with your presentations, we will hear a rebuttal from your side. anyone else who might have information that has not been submitted to us that would like to make presentations from both sides of the floor the next time we meet we will grant that but those of you who have spoken already you will not get that chance you've already spoken your piece so for the sake of being fair and not putting the pressure on four people sitting up here with this case I don't think that would be fair to the applicant or to the ones who are in opposition for us to make that decision. So we're going to continue this case January the 27th. We thank you for being here today. We thank you for your participation. And we look forward to it. Legal, do I need a motion for that continuation? Do I hear a motion from our board? Mr. Chair, so moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chairman, let me vote before you complete your vote here. I just did. I'm both approved. Aye. We have. Thank you. We Thank you. You're going to be late. You're going to be late. I think we'll just have a special meeting. Mr. Chairman, if you need witnesses, people who signed in today, and get a testimony. They would be a thing you heard. They would. They would not add to that system. The witnesses have already spoken. They would not give the name. They would cry. Those who have signed in the opinion speak. Those are all over the head screen. So we hope that was a call. Well, now we got some people that were in the cops. The same, you know. They might have been. They might have been. They might have been. They might have been. Thank you. The taxi cab case. We've got one more case before us. And I think that case, I think they're going to ask for a continuance. We need to have them come full postponement, which would be the... Mr. Greg Kajowski. I was hoping you would be heard on this. Is it time for everyone to leave? I was just told by your representative that you had agreed to him. We're on opposing sides, but he told me he was agreeable to continue us now. No, I never said that. Then we're going to hear this case once this room clears, and those of us who have to leave, we'll have to leave, and we'll hear it with the four people that are here. All right. Sounds good. You good? You good? I have to leave. How long is this going to be? I've already missed one. What time are you up to leave? I've got to get to the other one. I don't know if we'll have to. The staff has recommended that this thing be approved, and I don't know. We've only got one person in opposition, so it shouldn't be that long. Are you going to leave? I've got you, too. I've got to go. I understand that. Are you willing to stay? Yes. Okay, good luck. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. You taking all that home? You taking all that home? I'm sorry. I gave you back those two sheets. Those two letters. we would ask that if you please would kind of help us with vacating your room we've got another case we've got to hear please just have a seat there say we'll get right with you sorry about that one I agree to discontinue. I know. Because that's the good that I got. You can't just help. You know? And Bruce agreed to that for a second. Well, I didn't hear that. Don't think we'll be put two minutes on. Get them out. That's right. You bet you I am. She moved to it. What is this? That was a number of... Mr. Kupchowski. That's what it is. That's what it is. That's what it is. I think a person is there. I think we only had one person in this case. What is this? Lord. Jesus Christ, what is this? Burning up the coffee machine, man. Shoot. What is all this? What is this? Thank you. I See if anybody else I I think Case number two a two zero eleven dash eighty one Craig Kajoski appeals for an administrative review to determine the dispatch and vehicle use associated with the taxi business is permitted in a professional office P1 zone on property located at 1084 Wellington Way, Council District 10. The staff has recommended approval and given the following reasons, but however, we have an individual, I thought it was one in opposition. How many people we got here in opposition? We've got several people here in opposition. So if you would, Mr. Kajoski, if you'll have a seat, we're going to hear their concerns. Who's, and I want to ask you all, Mr. Todd, the same I asked you before. I don't want to hear the same thing regarding their objection, please. They're well organized, and you won't have any duplicity, I hope. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Wellington Place Council of Owners, I appear today in opposition to Mr. Kozoski's application or his request for clarification. As you may well know, this is a P-1 zone, and he has opened not only a law office, which is certainly appropriate under the P-1 classification, classification but in addition to that he now operates what we find to be three or four different taxi companies he tells you a request that that he only wants to use this for a dispatch center but in fact the evidence will show in the testimony from all of the other people from Wellington Place that he's used it as a storage lot we have photographs over taking over six week period showing taxi cabs parked in the same spot overnight frost on the windshields the next morning same license plates same ID numbers and that not only do the taxi cabs place are parked in that particular location but it appears that several of the taxi cab operators park their personal vehicles there while they're apparently utilizing the taxi cabs the staff had recommended approval based on his statement to them that it was his intent only to use it as a transitory circumstance where they would come in, cash their tickets, pay their fees, and then move on. And in fact, the evidence will show otherwise. The staff argued that it's very much akin to a real estate office where realtors may have their vehicles that are marked, and that certainly is not the case. As you well know, realtors conduct business inside the office. They have an area where they do closings, access the internet, meet with clients, etc. This is a transportation business. It's a fleet service business. It doesn't belong in a P1 zone. It belongs in a B1 zone or a downtown B2 zone. And it's the position of the council of co-owners that not only has this use violated the intent of the P1 zone, but it also has created an unfair trade or competition advantage for Mr. Taxi and or his other associated companies. I believe there's three or four other companies that he operates under. All the other companies in the community, Yellow Cab, etc., they comply. They're in a B1 zone or B2 zone, and certainly the cost for P1 office space versus a a B1 or B2 zone that's dramatically different. The council members are going to speak to you briefly on various subjects that I've summarized for you, and they would ask at the conclusion of this that you indicate that this particular zone is not appropriate for the operation of a taxicab business, which should be appropriately located in the B1 zone. Thank you. Before we listen to some of your people who are in opposition to this building, have you all had any dealings with this particular situation? We received a complaint from this organization about this, and that's what brought this about. we have a history to look at these type businesses as a vehicle storage this I think planning made a reference to a 1988 case which involved I think is Bell South the wanted to keep their for maintenance are not for maintenance but their their service fields in this type of setting and we made the determination determination that that was also an inappropriate vehicle storage use. So we've always, we've had a history of considering these types of uses. Where the vehicle, and it's the fleet that we are concerned with as far as the storing of the vehicles. We look at that as a B3 use as vehicle storage and we've held historically to that opinion. I may have another question for you after we listen to the applicant. you got coming before Mr. Todd. I have several witnesses. Mary Reed will be my first. My name is Mary Reed and I own unit 1074 at Wellington Place and I've served as the secretary of the council of co-owners for 15 years. After reading the appeal prepared by Mr. Kuchowski I was compelled to respond with a letter to the board to outline the serious misrepresentations that he has presented. I would like to read my letter to you at this time, and you may find a copy of my letter, all the photos, and all reference documents in the binder we provided for you behind my name tag. This letter is in response to the administrative appeal presented to the Board of Adjustment by Greg Kujowski on behalf of his Mr. Taxi Business. After reading his letter of appeal, it is critical to address several statements in Mr. Kujowski's letter that misrepresent the facts. Under the storage of vehicles, Mr. Kujawski contends that he has four staff people and therefore four cars would logically be parked on the premises. However, he does not mention the fact that in addition to his employees' cars, there have been on an average of six cabs in the lot every day since his business opened in mid-October. Many days we have counted as many as ten cabs lined up in the parking lot. The majority of these are pulled in the front row of our lot and face Wellington Way. Several of these cabs are left in the lot for several days at a time. When these cabs appeared in our lot, I sought legal advice immediately and was told to start taking photos of the cab to demonstrate the situation. I am attaching photos that we have taken starting October 17th through December 12th. The camera we used for the bulk of these photos shows both the time and date each one was taken. Photos were taken many days at three-hour intervals. These photos clearly prove that Mr. Kujowski's claim that his cabs are only in the lot for ten minutes or less one day a week simply is not true. The first set of photos was taken with my cell phone, so there is no time or date on them. They were taken on Monday, October the 17th. I returned from vacation that day, and these photos clearly show the parking lot was filled with cabs and the cab drivers. If you would just take a few moments to examine these photos, I believe you will find them to be more credible than Mr. Kujowski's written claim in this appeal. Under his miscellaneous section, Mr. Kujowski openly admits to having operated his cab business in two prior P-1 zones. The fact that he obviously disregarded the P-1 zoning restrictions in these previous locations, and his contention that he had no complaints from other business owners in those previous locations, is less than accurate and further was not in compliance with the P1 zoning. Also outlined under his miscellaneous section is another major misrepresentation. Mr. Kujowski states that our professional office complex faces a shell service station, Valvoline Instant Oil Change, Fazoli's and McDonald's. This is absolutely not true. Our complex faces Wellington Way. These commercial businesses mentioned by Mr. Kujowski are part of Palomar Center and the address for each business is Palomar Center Drive. A very nice residential area called Palomar Trace faces our complex. If you will look at the photo on the front of the binder that you've been given, this is the view from our parking lot from the entrance to Wellington Place. We are the step-down buffer zone between the commercial zone and the residential zone. The PVA website confirms that all those businesses are correctly located in B1 zones. In the same section, Mr. Kujawski references the Panera Bread Company, located at the corner of Wellington Way and Palomar Center Drive. This restaurant is properly located in a B-1 zone, and the formal address of the business is 3705 Palomar Center Drive. The only relevance these businesses have to this appeal is to point out that they are properly located in commercial zones, and according to the building inspector, Mr. Taxi is not properly located in a P-1 zone. In the storage of vehicles section of the appeal, Mr. Kujawski states that Ray Shogren had approval from the association president prior to locating the business at Wellington Place. I am attaching a signed and notarized affidavit from Bruce Stith, attorney at law, who is the association president. He states that Ray Shogren never consulted him concerning their move to the complex, and if he had, he would have called an owner's meeting to discuss the proposal. He also states in his affidavit that he arrives early most mornings and cabs are in the lot as early as 7.45 a.m. He further states that the cabs are in the lot on a continuous basis throughout the day. He estimates the average number of cabs to be six or more. I am also attaching a petition signed by condo owners at Wellington Place. This petition was drawn up and circulated among owners when Mr. Taxi opened its office for business and the owners realized the potential problems this was going to create. This was done prior to the building inspector's ruling, stating Mr. Taxi was not in compliance with the P1 zoning. Although we did not have to use the petition to initiate action from the building inspector, it does serve as a document to substantiate the owner's opposition to this cab business, monopolizing our parking lot. As Secretary of the Council of Co-owners for Wellington Place, I received many personal visits from other owners, voicing their discontent with this situation. Their customers were complaining that parking was limited and the traffic was congested. Owners were not happy that we had cabs lining the front row of our parking lot. The consensus of all owners who spoke with me was that this is not a business that falls within the P1 zoning and our deed restrictions and covenants. Our complex currently includes professional businesses such as insurance agencies, a CPA firm, a realtor, two psychiatrists, three licensed clinical social workers, financial planning firm, and law offices. All of these businesses have clients who come to the offices to transact business or seek medical advice. Parking is a critical issue for us, and the existence of park haves in the lot has impacted the availability of parking spaces, not to mention the appearance of our professional setting. Two owners have had current tenants threaten to move upon termination of their existing lease if the cabs are permitted to stay. I have a letter from one of the psychiatrists stating the complaints he has had from his patients and how this will definitely be a consideration when his lease is up for renewal. Another major concern voiced to me is the wear and tear on our parking lot by these additional vehicles in the lot. When the condo owners made the decision to invest in a Wellington Place location, They felt the P-1 zoning, deed restrictions, and covenants of the development would assure them that only professional businesses would be allowed to locate in the complex. Most of the owners have been here since 1994, and we want the professional appearance and integrity of our complex to be preserved. Having a cab business located in the complex includes having cabs parked in the lot. We have all witnessed these cabs parked in our lot for days at a time. I am submitting photograph proof of this. Mr. Kujawski has misrepresented the number of cabs and the duration of their stay in the lot. If this appeal is approved, we have no reason to believe our lot will not continue to be filled with these cabs, and the number may even increase. This will open the door for other cab companies to locate in P1 zones. On behalf of the owners who have signed the petition in opposition of this business being in our complex, I would appreciate it if you would support the building inspector's original decision on this situation and deny their appeal. Thank you very much. Thank you. That letter, I believe, is in her book at which we will introduce her. Okay. What Paul takes a stand. I do want to submit some proposed findings of fact. and also copy the administrative appeal application, which I assume is already in the record, as well as the building inspection's original refusal. Yes, sir. Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Paul Pfister, and I'm an owner in the Wellington Place Council of Owners Condo Association. I'm also a homeowner in the Harrodsview neighborhood, which is adjacent to our condominium complex. And based on the situation of time, I'm going to start with, under my tab, Paul, you'll see a letter from a gentleman by the name of Craig Mackin. Craig is the owner, one of the co-owners and president of Yellow Taxi Service that's located here in Lexington, Kentucky. They're currently located in an I-1 space. And Craig wrote this email to Mr. Don Todd. I understand you're a zoning attorney that's representing the Wellington Council of Owners, 1062 to 1088 Wellington Way. In the zoning hearing forthcoming in mid-December 2011, my name is Craig Mack, and I'm the owner of Yellow Cab Service in Lexington. I do believe having Mr. Taxi or any of my competitors located in a P1 zoning is a definite unfair competitive advantage for them over my company. I know you're familiar with zoning, and my company, the largest cab company in Lexington, is appropriately located in an I-1 zoning, which is more of an intense zone and more suited for the traditional business needs and model of a cab company. It would certainly be at a very unfair competitive advantage to any cab company that could locate in a P-1 space due to its close proximity of Keeneland, the Lexington Airport, among other local gathering places. A cab company is simply not suited for a P1 space. In our business, we have very high and intensive traffic patterns of 70 to 80 drivers entering and exiting our lot every day, and certainly much more on the weekends. At any given time, we have 15 to 30 cabs in our lot. Drivers will congregate while waiting on the next call. Time important as rapid entry and exits add to the already intense and dangerous liability. We have to drive extensive amounts to get to the destinations where people need cab services. If I were able to locate in a P1 space, I could certainly have a unique advantage over the other cab companies as I would pay much less for space. It should not be permitted for any cab, taxi, driver, service, fleet service company to be located in a P1 space. I urge you to correct these zoning deficiencies as soon as possible. as soon as possible. The entire business model from accounts payable, accounts receivable, dispatching, driver congregation, and taxi outdoor parking is simply not suited for a P1 space and their entire business should have to be relocated to a more appropriate zoning such as a B4 or an I1 space where we currently are. Should you need any additional information or questions feel free to contact me at my office. That was from Mr. Mackin. In my binder, the next page, it's a 26-page document, and I promise you I will not go through the whole thing. It is simply just the deed and the consideration certificate along with the title opinion, relevant restrictions, just one relevant restriction. When I signed this information, when I bought my unit in 2004, I promised to abide by all these restrictions and did so every other owner. me and after me would be buying into this complex. This step down in buffering zone classification is one of the most highly sought after classifications in the city because of its rights and its protections that we bought into and were promised. We intend as owners to agree to protect these rights and benefits and to protect our assets and minimize any forms of dangerous or potentially harmful inappropriate liability. We look to you for your help on this issue. As owners, we have the rights to use the covenants and restrictions to operate and control our community common areas and our assets, and it has served us well over the years. When I bought my property, my attorney assured me that anyone else will and must comply to these same restrictions, and he's indicated to protect your property values and to protect the integrity of the complex as professional P1 space. No one can ever take that away from you unless you and 13 other people agree to change the zoning or the highly restrictive covenants. Page B, I have labeled these in the bottom left-hand corner, A to Z. And page B, item number three, discuss zoning, building restrictions, and ordinances. Page E discusses the title evaluation opinion listed for the extensive restrictions and covenants of property and the Neighborhood Association rights to enforce them. Page F is a list of all the restrictions and covenants of 1062 and 1088 Wellington property. Please pay close attention to page G, number 14 of record, the Wellington covenants and restrictions applicable to 1062 and 1088 Wellington Way, known as the developer and the corporation, also known as Wellington Council of Owners, dated December 13, 1994, recorded in the deed book, 1764, page 55, in the Fayette County Clerk's Office. These are just, these covenants only represent one of 35 covenants and restrictions that were in my title opinion, and I read every single one of them, and many of them have to do with using this facility and this common area in the appropriate manner. and a lot of these are associated with combination agreements with not only Herod's View Neighborhood Association, but also Herod Hill's Neighborhood Association. I waited for many years to rent my unit to the right type of tenant, and I was assured that I would have the privileges, the advantages, and benefits of continued property valuation in a positive direction by having this buffer zone, this zoning classification of P1 space. If you look at page T, article 9 reads, The lot shall be held, transferred, sold, and occupied subject to the following protective restrictions, conditions, limitations, reservations, covenants running with the land. Section 1, the unit shall be used for office units only as allowed in the professional office P1 zone and set forth in ordinances of the Lexington, Fayette, Irvin County Government. The taxi business is clearly in violation of this zoning, and as well as the restrictions they bought into when they bought the property, and we obviously have proof of that for you today. The entire business model of a taxi cab fleet service business is well outside the P1 zoning. We as owners have not united formally to formally enforce this action against this member. Rather, we are here to support your decision that you have already ruled upon and provide you the real facts of the appeal. Section 11 of the same page states that no noxious or offensive activity shall be conducted on the lots or common areas, nor shall anything be permitted to be done thereon which may become an annoyance or a nuisance. The key words there, I think, may be become. You will see a signed petition, as you've seen, with many owners on it that deem this operation as an annoyance and a nuisance outside the covenants and restrictions of what's been set forth. When clients or customers of the owners can't find parking spaces because numerous cabs or personal cab drivers' vehicles are monopolizing the majority of the parking spaces, we have an annoying situation. I bought in this area and I made promises to obey all of these 35 covenants. I'm also supposed to be able to enjoy the benefits of continued positive property valuations and the privilege of highly restrictive P1 zoning ordinances, as did all the other owners. We have 14 owners in the complex, and the majority of them, 12 out of the 14, have agreed the cab business is not in accordance with their obligated responsibilities and covenants of the promises that they made when they purchased the building and the property. The cab business model is not conducted for P1 space. We've confirmed documentation that this is a highly intensive, very dangerous, high-traffic activity business. We will share this information with you today. I highly urge you to uphold your current decision of indicating to this cab company that they are in an incorrect zone for their entire business model and recommend the removal of this business out of their complex while allowing them to find an establishment that much more is suited and conducive for their highly intensive requirements. I believe that many of the aspects in the appeal that you have read have been false and misleading statements. Therefore, I felt important that the truth come out today. If we need to formally unite and use our resources to remove this business or rectify this problem, we will certainly do it vigorously, but we look to you for your support today where we may not have to do that. I will close with the letter from my tenant. He is a physician, and he wrote on October 26, 2011, Dear Mr. Pfister, as the owner of my building, I'm writing regarding my concern about the recent developments of the office complex where my office is located. As I believe you are aware, within the past two weeks, a taxi company is located in one of the offices across the parking lot. This has resulted in a large number of taxi cabs parked in the parking areas, and as you enter the parking lot and spreading out into the area directly in front of my office. When I first observed this, I thought this would not present a significant problem. as I assumed the taxis would be on the road during daytime business hours transporting fares. However, it has come to my attention that the majority of these vehicles remain parked in the area during our office hours. My patients have now discovered that parking near my office is often restricted by the constant presence of these taxis. My patients have reported in the past week that they have been unable to find parking spaces for their appointments. It has caused some patients to be late for their appointments on more than one occasion. I understand that patrons visiting other offices on my side of the parking lot have also difficulty finding parking. I would appreciate any help you can provide in resolving this matter. Now, that's what he put in writing. I don't want to tell you what he told me to my face, but obviously he's very concerned about it. We're all very concerned about it, and we do urge you to please uphold your decision. and let's see if we can help this company find a more appropriate place. This is the third P1 space they've been in, and they indicate that they haven't had complaints, but we actually know people that have complained, and if we need to subpoena those people, we will do that because we do know who those people are. Thank you for your time. Hello. Thank you. It's been a long day so far. My name is Tom Biederman. I'm a real estate broker and an auctioneer. and I've been practicing real estate in Lexington for over 30 years. I entered into a lease agreement purchase of 1076 Wellington Way in October, and just about the next day I drove out there and saw seven Mr. Taxis parked in the parking lot, which caused serious concerns for me regarding a purchase because I'm all about asset value, And I thought this looked like a great place to be, a great office place, but to me with a taxi in the parking lot, it does not hold those values as well as it should. So I then read very carefully the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government P1 zoning regulations and assured myself that a taxi company was definitely not an allowed use under the current zoning regulations. I also consulted with my attorney, who confirmed my thoughts on those rules. Soon thereafter, and after speaking with neighborhood office owners, I was informed that code enforcement had visited the property and had disallowed the taxi company usage, which I believed a correct decision. So, I went ahead with my purchase agreement. At that time, I only found out a couple of days afterwards that the taxi company had filed an appeal to allow the taxi company to remain in a P1 zone, which again is clearly prohibited by the rules. Additionally, along this portion of our street, Wellington Way is also in an R1 zone. I'm a real estate broker. I know what these things can do to asset value. There's houses right across the street less than 100 feet from the Mr. Taxi office and from where they park all their cars. And although the residential folks are not here with us today, they are certainly affected, and their property values will be affected by the taxi company allowing them to stay in that neighborhood. So, therefore, with all that said and with all our folks that we've had here with us today, I strongly urge the board to uphold the laws, rules, and regulations of this city that are currently enacted zoning rules. They're in place for a reason. They were put there for a reason. They're made to be followed and not broken at the whim of a single person or entity over the good of the majority or the entire neighborhood. So I urge you to do that. Thank you very much for your time and your service to our community. Thank you. Good evening, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our problem here before you. My name is Douglas Ruth, and I'm a psychiatrist. I've been practicing in this office complex that we're discussing for about 11 or 12 years, first leasing space in it, and then over the past several years as an owner of the office complex that I work out of. In selecting a place to practice, I was giving particular attention to a place that was peaceful, quiet, did not have a great deal of volume of traffic moving in and out of the parking lot and that also had ample parking close to my building. One reason being that in addition to treating people for psychiatric conditions, I do a a lot of examinations of people who've suffered work in industrial injuries. So a lot of my people that I examine have back disease and they have orthopedic problems. If they can park close to my office, it certainly is an advantage. If they have to work the way across a crowded parking lot, it's not only a disadvantage, but they don't have the agility and speed to get out of the way of moving traffic as easily as we would hope. Did I have the first of my slides? There we go. We might need to dim the lights a little bit. To illustrate, I have here a copy of the photograph that was attached to the appeal provided by Mr. Taxi. I wanted to use that drawing so that you would be reassured that we're both talking about the same situation. Yep, I do. This is the actual photograph Mr. Taxi submitted as an appendix to his appeal. You see that he labeled the building he's located in. The entire complex includes that building and these other two. And let me see if this one is clearer. This is not rotating. Can you hit the next slide for me, please? There we go. Once again, these are the three buildings in the complex we're talking about. As you can see, this is a quiet street. This was before Mr. Taxi moved in. It's a quiet residential street. You can see there's ample parking in the parking lot. Even though the handicapped spots are filled, as you can see by these two vehicles, the one next to them, which is actually closer to my office, is still free. as are others along this side. So previously this was a place that really met our needs as quiet places of practice and business that did not have a great deal of traffic. Now, in the appeal, Mr. Taxi indicated that these face several other businesses, which he referred to as more industrious, but I think he was meaning places that had more traffic and more activity, which I think he probably was implying would mitigate against the negative impact of his business. He referred to the Valvoline oil change place, Shell service station, Fazoli's restaurant, maybe McDonald's. As you can see, though, while he indicated that our offices faced those, in actuality they do not. These are the fronts and the entrances of our offices. The backs are facing those other businesses, but more so you see this row of trees that's strategically located to shelter our buildings from the noise, traffic, and even the sight of these other businesses. What you can't see is, in addition, there is an earthen berm around these buildings to add even more insulation from traffic noise and sight to those other businesses. If you look carefully, the only entrances and exits from our offices are these two, and they face not businesses but a single family dwelling and this quiet little street. This is a photograph taken as if you're driving out of one of those driveways, and you see that what you have before you is just that. residents and This is from that other driveway and you see that this is the street I referred to and here One resident is cleaning his lawn another is walking a dog back here And there are three children playing in the street and this brings up another concern that I have is that Not only do I not want my patients especially those who have handicaps to have to negotiate this traffic, but I'm concerned about the people in the neighborhood. Bear with me. There we go. Once again, here are our buildings. This is the street I just showed you in the photograph. If you look around the corner, just one short block up this way, the corner of Salih Drive and Lyon Drive, which is this street, is the bus stop for three schools, Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School, Beaumont Middle School, and Rosa Parks Elementary School. So six times a day, school buses stop right up around here to pick up children and to let children off. And I'm worried about their concern with this high volume of traffic coming through. Now, if you look also between these two buildings, you see this where trees are growing through. This is actually a gap between the two buildings. Now, what we find is that children in these neighborhoods, they, to look at the road going through the parking, or rather the shopping center, Palomar Center Drive, you'll see that the sidewalk ends, There's no sidewalk following down this road, so it's not good for pedestrian traffic. Children in the neighborhoods take a shortcut through our parking lot. They go through this. There's a bridge that they walk on to get across the berm, and they enter the back of the shopping center. They like to go down there and get ice cream and frozen yogurt. Graters used to be here and graters would give free ice cream cone if you made straight A's. So there's going to be continued a lot of, albeit unauthorized, but children traffic coming through here that also would have to negotiate with the higher volume of traffic. This is about all that I have to say. I appreciate, again, your patience in giving us this opportunity to present these concerns to you. Thank you. Good evening. This is going to be incredibly brief because I know we've all been here pretty much all day. My name is Jill Ricardo, and I'm under the tab of Jill in that notebook. And I'm a licensed clinical social worker in private practice. I'm also an owner at 1078 Wellington White. I am here to speak about my concerns and also the concerns of a tenant that works with me in my office. Under my tab, you will find my letter with my concerns and also her letter with her concerns about the fact that she also works with people that have disabilities. and she is concerned they don't necessarily have parking spaces because they don't have the passes so she is concerned about them having to park all the way out in the lot because there are taxis and other vehicles taking up their regular parking spaces my concern is that I think that mr. taxi has misrepresented themselves in terms of what they said was they take the taxis home at night etc etc well I have as you can read and I'm not going to read it to you because you can read it okay I have talked about the evolution of our parking the logistics of our parking since mr. taxi moved in and and to now okay I speak of the fact that initially there were a whole bunch of taxis there and that at some points in time when they knew we were kind of paying attention to what they were doing they came out and rotated I was there and I saw this happen they came out and rotated taxis where they would slide them out of one space and just back them into another one in the same parking lot and then I am the one that can speak the best about the evening parking which one would think is not important but it is we don't want people parking in our lot overnight I have groups that I operate three nights a week I usually lock up my office about 8 30 in the evening sometimes as early eight and what has happened recently is actually within the last week and a half the taxis have disappeared out of our lots and I want to make it very clear that this is not just a taxi issue it is an issue of the people who drive those taxis if in fact they are taking them home at night what are they doing with their own cars and I would suggest to you that they're leaving them in our parking lot okay and also during the day and so again you all can read this my final observation is this all of us began to wonder what what are they doing with their own cars okay so because I'm the last one to leave our parking lot almost every night I'm going to tell you a couple of observations again this is in the second page of my letter the one of my observations on Monday of this week as they have begun to take the mr. taxis out of the lot when I left the office at 815 on Monday of this week there were I think 13 cars in the lot one mr. taxi and no other offices were open and so that also I have paid attention to this every night this week on that was Tuesday night on Wednesday night there were five cars in the lot and no other offices were open there was one mr. taxi and last night as I was leaving there were 15 cars in the lot and no other offices were open there was a Christmas party going on, but I can recognize. The point of the cars is that they're not identifiable. They're just random cars. That's pretty much all I have to say, except I would ask you please to read the letter from my office mate, Melissa Hall, about the nuisance. We thank you. One of our gentlemen had to leave, so I'll just sum in 15 seconds what he wanted to say. Jimmy, could you put the overhead photograph that the doc had up there for me, please? You have it? Okay. Two quick points that we wanted to make to you. You could dim the lights a little bit. This particular P1 is a step-down zone, as was mentioned, between the highway business there and the residential behind it, And that's obviously an appropriate planning tool. But as was mentioned in the staff's report, the parking lot initially was to have a certain number of parking spaces for square footage in the building. Some point subsequent to, and I don't have a pointer, but some point subsequent to the initial construction, a wing on this office was added. At the lower portion of the complex there, a wing was added. Thank you. to expand the usage. And while they expanded the square footage, they did not expand the number of spaces. There are 81 spaces. I think it's an appropriate figure. 89 or 91? Sorry? 81 spaces. Okay. So while they still were in compliance with the square footage versus parking space ratio, it certainly made things more difficult. And what's happened here is this company came in and located here and said, we want to operate a dispatch center and or our business offices, which normally would be acceptable. But they bootlegged in the other aspect of it, and they're bringing these vehicles in, you know, 5, 10, 15 cars a day. They park them, as you can see from the photographs. They don't lie. They're using this as their storage facility, albeit arguing that, you know, these drivers, they take their cars home. We don't have a storage facility. Well, that's exactly the point that Yellow Cab made to you is you're not going to have every single cab you own on the road at all times. You're going to need a storage facility. You've got repaired or damaged vehicles. You've got drivers who are sick, whatever. And so they're using this as their storage facility. They're going to deny it, but the facts are obvious that they are, and that's not appropriate in the P1 zone, and they've misled the staff about that. And so we're asking you, since this is before you, to deny them any usage of that parking lock for storage, for access. If they want to do a computer program out of there in an office context, I think they're entitled to do that. But they cannot use it for a dispatch, storage, or a cab facility, which would be normally in a B1 or B2 zone. I do want to point one thing for an administrative reason. And the administrative appeal application has the name of the Asc-Medamidamini, or however you pronounce that name, three-family LTD, but we couldn't find anything with the Secretary of State. I think that's the wrong name. I think they're actually owned by another name. Mr. Todd, right here in front of you. No, I'm sorry, on the board. Sorry, I apologize. That's all right. Acoustics are great. I missed some of the woman's testimony that just sat down. I didn't understand the flip-flop between the taxis and the personal cars. Can you make me understand that? Okay. It's our position, and most of these people have been in this locale for, oh gosh, eight, nine, ten years, and they typically know who's parking customers and so forth. And what's happened is some of the drivers are bringing their personal cars and parking them and leaving them, and then taking the cabs and going about doing their business. And those personal cars, and I've been to this complex myself five times in the last two weeks, and there's two or three red cars that are parked in the same spot and never move. And we're convinced and are submitting to you that these are drivers of these taxi cabs that are using that as a storage lot for their vehicles while they're on the job. So can you suggest some solution on that since they're unidentifiable? I mean, keeping the taxis out of the parking lot is one thing, but what do we do about this other? Well, if you get the taxis out there, I assume you won't have the personal vehicles in there as well. They won't be able to exchange them. They'll exchange them at a storage lot. The other option would be, obviously, that I guess they could have them towed away. I guess there could be some action taken internally. But it's our position that none of these issues arose until Mr. Taxi came in. And, by the way, there are four companies that they run. Mr. Taxi, Airport Taxi, Campus Taxi or Campus Cabs. And they're running several different companies out of this one location. Thank you. Let me make sure I haven't missed anything. i can't imagine that you would miss anything mr todd paul fister i did a survey of all the businesses on this corner of harrodsburg road and wellington way including palomar center boulevard palomar center drive and wellington way and all of these businesses, every single one of them have a buffer, either another P1 business or another B1 business that buffers them in their entrance and their exits. Our complex and the Palomar Family Health, which is next to us, we share those two driveways. Those are the only two business driveways that face out directly to single-family homes. every other business in that entire complex is buffered by either a highway another business or a p1 buffer zone so we just thought we would point that out and in mr. Macken's letter as he talks about the runnings of a cab company he not only owns the one in Lexington but he owns the one in Louisville as well he simply states that it's just simply not conducive to operate a cab company where you have executive management in one location and administrative management, because they have to constantly communicate with the cab drivers. And the cab drivers, time is of the essence. They have to leave the lot very quickly. They have to come back very quickly. Lots of times when they're arguing about the cash, about the money transactions, about what they're supposed to be paid versus what they're paid, it's a very adversarial business model. He said it's almost next to impossible to think that you could separate those activities and that this entire business model would be better served in a more high-intensive zone. And he is certainly willing to answer questions of that if you all have any additional questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kuchowski. I apologize. I think this is going to take a little bit to go through what I want to say and then respond to what was said because much of it is not accurate and disingenuous at best. The main things that we do here at this business, the first thing is our communication center. And we don't have any radio equipment there. Everything is done by our dispatcher answering the phone and doing a data entry. And it is sent through the computer to a tablet that's in their car. We don't keep any drivers. There's no drivers that stay at the office looking to pick up a fare. They're out in Fayette County. They keep the vehicles 24 hours, 7 days a week. I don't know of any driver that leaves a vehicle in the lot. I don't know of any that we've had in the past. Let me ask you a question before you go on, please. And in regards to the pictures you're about to look at, I spoke to the, and I apologize, I don't know her name, but I know she works at State Farm or her husband owns it. I'm sorry? Anyways, her son would come out and take pictures during the time periods. And I admittedly put that on our application, that our drivers do come and pay once a week, that they drop off all their paperwork. And anyways, but they would come during those time periods and take pictures of the vehicles when there was drivers coming, and then they would leave. They wouldn't be there for a very long time period, usually less than 10 minutes. And one of the pictures in there is of my personal vehicle that has the logos of the taxi on there. I'm an attorney by trade, but my vehicle is there longer, but it's my personal vehicle. Anyways, I'm sorry, what were you going to ask me about that? I was going to ask you, I mean, I'm sitting here looking at a roll of cabs on several different dates. I mean, I don't know why these people would have to make up an excuse. I mean, pictures don't tell you any tales unless they're just photographing the same pictures every day. I mean, it seems to me like there is an issue here that I think you need to address relative to why the cabs are there. I'm not talking about the cab driver's vehicles. We're talking about the cabs. And as you see on the application that when I did the appeal on this, I stated that we could have as many as one to three vehicles there. But the amount of vehicles, we have the smallest staff of anybody that's at this organization. Usually I put four, but usually we have one dispatcher on. If I'm in court, the only other people that we would have there is our accountant that's there, and that's pretty much it. We may have one other person there. We usually have a staff of about four Monday through Thursday. In regards to what you were stating about the vehicles there, if you look at the data on those photos, we told them when we first moved there, we did move some vehicles there, And that was in early October when they complained. In regards to that, we do have an off-storage facility where the vehicles are kept. And Yellow Cab, going back to what you said about the testimony that was given or read from Mr. Macken's letter, they basically said that we're the same business, we're not. Yellow Cab does all the repairs of their vehicles on site. I think they have four or five bays there. They keep all their wrecked cars that have been in accidents that they part out. They do all their oil changes, tires. We do no vehicle maintenance at the site. We don't keep any junked vehicles there. We don't even so much as check the oil there. We don't do any type of work like that. And that's where there's a big difference. And I don't think Mr. Mackin's letter is correct either because they don't have drivers that are states waiting there for a call and then go and get it. I mean, that's not feasible. All your drivers are out somewhere in Fayette County, and they take a call. And the way our dispatch system works is the tablet sends the call to the drivers closest to the call. Yeah, go ahead. I just wanted to find yourselves there. If you're going to speak, you need to come up here to the mic, please. I'm sorry. I think that Michelle Sjogren, one of the owners. And I think that maybe Greg wasn't answering the questions. You're asking why would there be a large number of cars there at one time. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. On Mondays and Tuesdays, our drivers come in to bring their paperwork in to us and make payments to us. So on those days, they are our customers. They are our customers coming in. So if there are pictures taken on those days, you're going to see a larger number of our cars there. They come and they go. That is a separate issue. We talked to the association president, my husband did, who at the time was Mr. Krogel. I believe they've changed presidents since. Please, please, please, please, please, please. Okay, well, when we sought permission from Mr. Krogel, we were under the impression that he had the authority to give that permission. We have emails going back, but at the time when we discussed it with him, before we made the investment in moving our business to that location, we told him there would be two days that our drivers would be coming in to pay, and it would be a short transaction. They would bring their paperwork in, we would do the data entry that we needed to do, and then they would leave. And those are the days when we have large numbers of cars there. They're not there in perpetual on an everyday, long-term basis. So are you telling us, this board, that the testimony we've heard from medical people and business people in there, that your cars have not interfered with the parking relative to their business? Is that what you're telling us? I cannot answer to what they're saying, but I can say that we have specifically told our drivers not to park in any parking spaces that are directly in front of their businesses. We've asked them to park as far in the exterior areas of the parking lot as possible. And in almost every situation, I think maybe one or two exceptions where someone didn't get the word or didn't follow our instruction, that happens. So all those spaces right around their buildings, our drivers don't park there. and that I think that when they are showing evidence of large numbers of cars, it is on those specific days where we have our customers coming in for a short period of time, 15 maximum, 20 minutes, probably 10 to 15 minutes to make their payments. Can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. Are there any cabs parked there now? I believe there's one cab parked there right now. There's one. And in relation to that, I think that we would be, you know, we have an off-site storage. If our car is in any sort of non-operation, we don't store it there. There may be a car as an extra car that we have. For instance, one of our driver's car breaks down. We have an extra one there available that they could be put into. But if you tell us that you don't want us to have that one spare car there or we can't have any spare cars there, and the long term that they're talking about, those cars rotate. They rotate not because we're trying to do any tricky business, but because it's not the same car that's there all the time. That once a driver gets in a car, he takes the car, the car is his, it's gone. It doesn't come back unless he's no longer driving that car. Let me reference staff over here. Can I mention one thing too? I believe City Planning mentioned in their report that they had sent several of their workers over there to take pictures, and it specifically stated exactly like I did in our appeal that we usually had one to three vehicles there. I think even in the report that said there were up to six vehicles there, but they left fairly quickly. It's written somewhere in the report, and, I mean, that's an objective third party. You know, the report's here, and I even said to the woman's child that was out there taking the pictures that I said, you know that they're just dropping off right now. They're just dropping off their paperwork. And he always comes on Monday and Tuesday and was taking pictures trying to show that this is how many vehicles that are here when they're clearly not. A lot of times after the driver's left, the only vehicle there that would be left would be mine. I have a question. Yes. What hours are you taking payments or are you transacting with your taxi drivers? What hours is your office open? We take them from 9 to 4. And if I could... No, no, that's not true. So your taxi, the people who are coming to give you, the taxi drivers themselves, are coming from the hours of 9 to 4? On Monday and Tuesday. Correct. And, you know, the other testimony that was given, I might as well address it while I have it on my mind. They were saying that there's all these cars that are after hours and none of the businesses were open. Right next to us is Mary Kay. And they do all their business after hours. I imagine it's because it's a secondary job for most of these people. And they usually have anywhere from 15 to 25 vehicles almost every evening. And a lot of times they say Mary Kay on the side. There's sometimes pink vehicles. But, you know, it's no harm to us because at that time we usually have one dispatcher that's on. It sounds to me like, sir, the concern here is about the other businesses and how your vehicles are interfering with parking in front of other businesses. I think that is the concern here. And I want to ask staff a question relative to you all recommending approval for this. Was it understood that they were going to do what they are saying they're doing right now relative to cars coming in and switching cars and things of that nature? It was understood to the extent that that's what they made a claim of in their application. So in an attempt to kind of verify whether the numbers that they presented in their application were accurate, we went by this site on several times, not knowing what we'd find at all, which I think is why Mr. Kujawski said that we were kind of objective, totally independent, because we didn't know what we'd see. And I can give you the information. On December 1st, we visited the site at 5.15 p.m., and there were three taxis parked in the northeast corner of the lot. That's the farthest removed portion of the parking lot where the applicant indicated they'd try to get their drivers to park at. And there was one parked in front of the suite. I'm assuming that was probably Mr. Kujowski's personal vehicle that has the Mr. Taxi logo on it. So there was a total of four there on December 1st. December 2nd, we visited the site at 3.45 p.m. There were six taxis total there initially. Over the course of about 15 minutes, three of those had left, so there were three remaining. On December 5th, we had a staff person go by at 7.30 p.m. There was a total of two taxis. Again, those two were in the northeast corner, far removed portion of the parking lot. We visited the site on December 8th at 7.10 a.m., and there were three taxis in that northeast corner of the parking lot. Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? I'd like to hear from Mr. Hume because I know that Division of Building Inspection conducted your investigation as well and determined that the dispatching, leasing, and storage of taxes was not permitted. And obviously you had directed them with a cease and desist order or cease and desist all dispatching and storage of taxes. Can you talk a little bit about the complaints that you received and what your observation was and experience with this? Well, most of my complaints have come from Ms. Reed. She's been kind of the contact person for us or for her representatives. And our objection is not for the taxis to be dispatched from the office. We feel like that they can run their office as though it's any other office. If the taxis weren't coming to the building, you would not know there's a taxi business going on there. They do their accounts receivable, their accounts payable. They can do their dispatching without anybody being affected because at this day and age, it's all electronic. It's about what we considered, based on historical decisions, that this was illegal storage of the vehicles, and it was also a leasing of vehicles, which is the best in a B3 zone. And we've held to that issue on different occasions through different companies. We've also certainly the storage of vehicles starts in the I-1, where his competitor is. So that's our issue. It's not the business practice itself. And I think even Mr. Todd alluded to that. That's not even – their deed restrictions are not an issue. their business practice as far as paper shuffling and those issues aren't an issue. It's the vehicles themselves coming onto the lot and being either stored or considered, you could even consider, we would consider it leasing of vehicles. I'd just like to follow up and say that, you know, just counting the pictures and counting Mr. Marks, I mean, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten days over different, you know, October, November, and several days in December. I mean, there have been, you know, three to six cabs, you know, in your lot. And, I mean, you've got the association that is very much opposed to having you having these number of taxis. And I know sometimes they're located in one corner of the lot, but that seems to me to be the biggest problem. It's not you doing, as Mr. Hume says, not you doing business there. But, I mean, you know, the other owners are very upset, and, I mean, it's not one complaint. And with all due respect, I mean, there are multiple taxis in your lot, and it's not just on Monday and Tuesday. And I'd just like to try to reach, you know, some kind of resolution between you and the others to remove this. Mr. Stumbo, if I could add something. Yes. We had another case also where AAA wanted to store their records in a P1 zone. and we held on to our same train of thought. That would be more of an intrusive storage of vehicles, not conducive to a P1 zone. So we kind of hold, we've had a history of making this decision. We have one more question. If I could just add, we looked at a few other cases where this came up, and there has been, by the board, a variety of decisions. I mean, I guess I'm concerned about there have been times when this board has held that some vehicles on a lot is reasonable business use and it's not storage. I think I want, I just want to make sure that this board is basing its decision on a case-by-case basis. I agree. I think building inspection has been consistent in its decision in sending these cases to you. but I'm not I don't want the board to get the impression you have always said oh this is storage of vehicles and and you know each case has been different set of circumstances so you know I just didn't want to give you the impression you had a whole pile of precedent that was keeping you from making an individual decision here could I just quickly address a couple of things that were said in regards to the record uh the records that were there I understand that too the records are oversized vehicle and they are dispatched from the site our vehicles the actual transaction of the lease of the vehicle takes place when the customer gets in the vehicle and that's somewhere out in fayette county that doesn't come from our like a base camp they're not called and then they leave then they come back and they park the the lease of the vehicle always takes place when they're out in the field when you said something to the effect of trying to work something out And mr. O'Grind can best talk to this but she did attempt she knew miss Reed was upset when when we first got there And we did tell the association president or what we thought to be the association president at the time That hey look we're gonna have a little bit more vehicles here in the very beginning It was just for a very short time period and And and anyways then we were back to our normal amount some days. It's zero vehicles on the lot the She well when she went over there to try working something out to find you know she heard she was upset and She wouldn't miss read wouldn't even speak to her so we were always in that Idea that we did want to be good neighbors. We never had anybody come to us and say hey look we have an issue here You got too many vehicles here. No one ever came and spoke to us the the only thing that we ever got was a card from from building inspection when you came and said that that will be followed up with a letter. Let me say one other thing. And that's one thing that's regrettable about this. I would hope that if there was an issue that I know in a lot of other areas of law that I practice, that most parties are most happiest when they can make an agreement together or come to some understanding. And I think most parties are much happier with the outcome. And it's disappointing that we never got a chance to even talk or to see if there's anything that could have been resolved or some type of compromise that could be made. And I have to say, too, in the amount of vehicles that we have on premise and the amount that we could have based on our size, I think based on the places like 2,200, 2,300 square feet, we could probably have up to about 12 vehicles. We never, ever have that many vehicles. And usually we have the busy part of the lot, if the picture was still put up there, The busy part of the lot isn't in front of us or the back part. It's towards the other part. That area is always packed, and I assume part of it is they have a fairly big – these other businesses have bigger staffs than we do. I'm sorry. Go ahead. You can't do that now, Don. You know better. Yes, sir. I just wanted to address the issue of trying to work things out. I was there the Sunday before we actually moved our business into the office. Got a very irate phone call from Ms. Reed saying, what are you doing there? You don't have any right to be there. I told her actually we had spoken with Mr. Krogel. We had received permission to be there. We talked about parking lot. We have actually parking issues. We have emails to show that. We talked about parking issues with him. from the very beginning we were aware of possible concerns and we tried to address those possible concerns and I did go to your office ma'am on the day that we moved in in fact I even there were okay okay I went to her office on the day we moved in tried to talk to them I brought a plate of cookies we had an open house for our drivers and on that particular day we on the on October 17th we had many more drivers there because we had an open house at our new office welcoming them there um i talked to mr krogel after i went to her office and no one would respond to me i left the cookies on the desk with the girl michelle shogun mr taxi like to talk to you about this no response i talked to mr krogel mr krogel said she's really upset it's probably best if you let me handle that. We have made attempts to work this out. We are a family-owned business. We have a small number of employees. People depend on us, and we want to work this out. We want to make it feasible for them, and we want to make it feasible for us. We want to be good neighbors. We just want the opportunity to do that. If you say we can't store cars there, no problem. It's really not a big deal because we don't really store cars there anyway. It's just on a temporary basis that a car may be there. But the thing that we need to be allowed to do is allow our customers, which are the drivers, to come there and make payment to us once a week, in and out, just like their customers, their patients, whoever are coming to their businesses are allowed to do that in and out of the parking lot. Could I interrupt for just a moment? We've got pictures here. One is dated at 11.29 at 6.13 p.m., and there are five vehicles parked, five Mr. Taxis. Then there's another one at 11.29 at 7.36 p.m., and there are, I see four. And then there's one on 11.30 at 8.19 a.m., and there are three, no, excuse me, there are four parked. This is 8.19 a.m. So you have people coming from 9 to 4 to transact with you, the taxi drivers. what are these vehicles doing on the lot at these hours those evening hours you're seeing possibly i don't know what those days are a weekend we may have a driver coming in the evening excuse me just a moment now these people sit quietly while you all were making your presentations and i would ask you to do the same if you don't mind sir so it is possible that we may have greg still working late which he has the mr taxi vehicle we have our driver manager who may be coming to talk to a driver about an issue or to get a driver in a new car if there's some sort of mechanical issue so it is possible but what we're saying is that you know one to three the numbers that you're saying really aren't higher than that and if we take greg's number out it's pretty close to three but all we're saying is we we want to work with our neighbors we just want to be able to operate our business and allow our customers to come there to pay us. It is a business office. We're not doing anything there other than operating our business. Could I say one thing, too, in regards to cabs coming and going? In that specific instance, I don't know. I mean, there's no way to verify whether the camera was right on the date they put on. On a computer, you can go back and put any date that you would like. Are you insinuating that this is not? But what I am saying is that based on my past experience, they were coming out and taking pictures on days that our drivers are dropping their lease. But the point I was going to make is there's some medical facilities there and right next to us. Yellow Cab has an account that's part of, called Federated Transportation Service of the Bluegrass. That's part of the Human Service Delivery Program. Yellow Cab is picking up and dropping off patients in the same area. So if they can conduct that kind of business right in the parking lot, picking people up, dropping them off. Are we saying that our drivers can't temporarily come there and drop their paperwork off? I mean, and that's the only time that they would really be there. Well, I don't think that was the major concern here, and we will address that. I think you are misinterpreting what they're saying. I don't think they would have any problem with you or one of your drivers coming in and dropping off a paper and getting out of the lot, but coming in and parking and leaving the vehicles there is another issue. And I think you're misinterpreting what they say. You know, I am of the opinion that there are some concerns about this and there are some problems here, and I agree with the young lady here. I think that whether it's her fault or the neighbor's fault, there probably hasn't been a whole lot of strong communication relative to this particular situation. However, we're going to give you a chance to rebuttal over there, Mr. Todd, so don't get fired up. But we have a question here from you, Jimmy. I'm just wondering how long this business, how long have you owned this business? It's three years. And where were you located before now? We were on Monarch Street. What zoning was that? I'm sorry? What zoning was that? A P1 zone. And why did you leave there? For a bigger office. And where were you, how long were you at Monarch Street? A year and a half. And where did you come from? That's where it originated. That's where you started. So you were in one other P-1 zone. No, no. And then we went to 3084 Harrodsburg Road, which is right off a corporate drive. And we were there. So in three years, you've moved three times. You've originated, then moved, then moved. Well, the office that we had at, we were renting the office that was at the Harrodsburg Road office. Ray Shogren and his wife through a limited family partnership owns this building that we're in. And that's why we moved. And it is a little bit more conducive to what we're doing. It's a bigger building than we had before. Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add? I understand what you're referring to. I would just like to say the first place where the business operated was a one, there was one office there. We didn't even have our dispatch there. We moved out of there because it wasn't a large enough space for us. The second place we moved to was a large enough space for us, but it was not as conducive to dispatch in one area, which we have a basement now in our building, and operating our business practices up above where those two didn't have to intersect. And my husband and I do own this building, and that's why we made the third move, because as cart owners it makes more sense for us to be operating out of a building that we already own. So it's not because we had any problems anywhere we were. It was business moves, business decisions that made those moves. Could I also say this too, that Discount Cab, the other cab company that's here in town, is also on Wellington Way. They're a little further down the street, and it's a P1 zone where they're located too. All right. Anything else you want to add, sir? Will we get another chance to speak after this? I'll give you a chance to rebuttal, but then we're going to close this situation out here shortly. All right, thank you. I would just like an opportunity to clarify a few things. Well, tell us who you are, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Mary Reed. Is this, excuse me, is this part of your rebuttal? Yes, sir. I just wanted to clarify a few things. I did return from vacation and went over to my office to check on things. And this was on October, I believe I handwrote that on the first photograph. And our lot was full of cabs. And I'm like, what is going on? And I thought, how am I going to figure this out? So I called the number on the side of the cab. And I said, you know, my name's Mary Reed. I own an office condo at 1074.