# Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 28, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 28, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2304 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2304?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-10-28 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 10,876 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 October 28, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Chairman Louis Stout presided over the meeting, which addressed eight agenda items including variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews. The board took 11 votes and heard 4 public comments during the session. Of the eight items considered, four were approved, three were postponed, and one outcome was recorded. Approved items included a variance for Mid-America Apartments to reduce a freestanding sign setback from 20 feet to 0 feet, a variance for Thompson Thrift Development Co. to reduce front yard setback from 70 feet to 20 feet, a conditional use permit for Rhonda Henzman to operate embroidery services as a home occupation, and an administrative review for James D. Atkinson regarding a second detached garage. Three items were postponed: variance requests from James Hickey and James M. Ludka for side yard and setback reductions, and an administrative review for Ball and Wright Capital Holdings concerning a third wall sign. The board also postponed consideration of a conditional use permit application from Boone Creek Adventures, LLC for an agricultural market and recreational facility. ## Attendance **Present:** Louis Stout, Kathryn Moore, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Barry Stumbo, Jim Hume, Chuck Saylor, Jim Gallimore, Rochelle Boland, Jim Marx, Bill Sallee, Wanda Howard, Richard Murphy, James Hickey, Greg Harris, Lynn Harris, Scott Book, Mark McIntosh, and Stephanie Beck. **Absent:** Thomas Glover. **Late:** Barry Stumbo. ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during the October 28, 2011 meeting passed unanimously. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:03:30] The board approved the minutes of the September 30, 2011 meeting. The motion was made by Ms. Meyer and seconded by Ms. White. All six members voted in favor: Louis Stout, Kathryn Moore, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, and Barry Stumbo. **Postponements** Three items were postponed: - A-2011-71: BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS was postponed until December 16, 2011 [timestamp: 00:06:01]. Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Stumbo. - C-2011-70: BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC was postponed until November 18, 2011 [timestamp: 00:07:35]. Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Ms. Moore. - V-2011-72: JAMES M. LUDKA was postponed until November 18, 2011 [timestamp: 00:13:01]. Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Griggs. **Variance and Conditional Use Approvals** - V-2011-73: MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS (variance to reduce 20' setback to 0' for freestanding sign) was approved as recommended by staff with four conditions [timestamp: 00:11:32]. Motion by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Stumbo. - V-2011-74: THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT CO. (variance to reduce front yard from 70' to 20' for Group Residential Project) was approved as recommended by staff with three conditions [timestamp: 00:13:10]. Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs. - C-2011-69: RHONDA HENZMAN (conditional use permit for home occupation: embroidery services) was approved as recommended by staff with three conditions [timestamp: 00:14:17]. Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Stumbo. **Administrative Review** A-2011-68: JAMES D. ATKINSON (administrative review for second detached garage) was approved as recommended by staff with two conditions [timestamp: 00:15:20]. Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Ms. White. **Continuation** V-2011-58: JAMES HICKEY was continued until January 27, 2012 [timestamp: 01:12:13]. Motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Griggs. **Adjournment** The meeting was adjourned [timestamp: 01:14:38]. Motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Stout. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the board regarding a variance request related to an addition at a property in Walden Grove. **Opposition to the Variance** Greg Harris spoke at [timestamp: 00:42:47] to express concerns about the addition, which he stated was only nine inches from his property line. He cited multiple issues including water runoff, lack of maintenance access, and privacy concerns. Mr. Harris emphasized that he had raised his concerns early in the process and had not been passive, but felt forced into a difficult position due to construction already being completed. Lynn Harris spoke at [timestamp: 00:53:57] in support of her husband's position. She stated that the addition negatively impacts her property value and creates ongoing access issues, as any maintenance would require passage through her yard. She noted that she had rejected a financial offer to resolve the matter. **Support for the Variance** Richard Murphy spoke at [timestamp: 00:16:56] in favor of the variance request. He argued that the addition was consistent with the original development concept of Walden Grove and had strong neighbor support. Mr. Murphy characterized the construction as well-built and emphasized that the applicant had acted in good faith, stating that the variance was justified despite the lack of a building permit. **Code Compliance Concerns** Jim Hume from the Division of Building Inspection spoke at [timestamp: 00:57:44] regarding code compliance and fire safety. He noted that the current construction fails fire rating requirements due to a window located near the property line and recommended that the wall be re-rated. Mr. Hume also suggested possible solutions for the water runoff issue, including installation of gutters and a hydrology evaluation. ## Contested Items **James Hickey's Variance Appeal** A variance appeal by James Hickey generated heated discussion during the meeting. The case centered on disputes between the applicant and a neighboring property owner regarding several concerns: privacy issues, water runoff problems, and access questions. Despite Hickey's assertions that he was acting in good faith and claims of community support for his proposal, the neighboring property owner presented strong opposition to the variance. The disagreement reflected fundamental conflicts between the applicant's intentions and the neighbor's concerns about how the proposed variance would affect their property and interests. Rather than rendering a final decision, the Board chose to defer action on the variance appeal. This deferral was intended to provide an opportunity for the parties involved to work toward resolving their disputes before the Board would reconsider the matter. ## JAMES HICKEY - Variance to reduce side yard from 3' to 9" and rear yard from 10' to 0' **Case Number:** V-2011-58 James Hickey requested variances to retain a sunroom addition and deck that were constructed without a permit. The proposed variances would reduce the side yard setback from the required 3 feet to 9 inches and eliminate the rear yard setback requirement, reducing it from 10 feet to 0 feet. [timestamp: 00:08:07] **Key Speakers:** - Richard Murphy - Greg Harris - Lynn Harris - Jim Hume **Staff Recommendation and Issues:** Staff recommended postponement of the case rather than immediate approval. The primary concerns included the need for written permission from the adjacent property owner and proper notification of neighboring properties. These requirements were necessary before the Board could proceed with a final decision on the variances. **Outcome:** The Board continued the case until January 27, 2012. This postponement was intended to allow time for resolution of neighbor disputes and to address code compliance issues related to the unpermitted construction. The continuation provided an opportunity for the applicant to obtain the required documentation and for neighbors to be properly notified of the variance request. ## JAMES M. LUDKA - Variance to reduce side yard from 3' to 0' and alley setback from 6' to 1' **Case Number:** V-2011-72 James Ludka requested a variance to retain an existing fence located in a historic district. The variance sought to reduce the side yard setback from 3 feet to 0 feet and the alley setback from 6 feet to 1 foot. [timestamp: 00:08:38] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the side yard variance while recommending withdrawal of the alley setback variance. **Key Speakers** - Richard Murphy - Jim Sallee **Outcome** The Board postponed the case to November 18, 2011. The appellant was absent at the time of the hearing. ## MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS - Variance to reduce 20' setback for freestanding sign to 0' **Case Number:** V-2011-73 Mid-America Apartments requested a variance to reduce the required 20-foot setback for a freestanding sign to 0 feet, which would allow the sign to be placed at the property line [timestamp: 00:09:13]. **Presentation and Recommendation** Stephanie Beck presented the staff recommendation, which supported approval of the variance subject to specific conditions. The staff analysis focused on ensuring compliance with sight triangle requirements and proper permitting procedures. **Conditions of Approval** The Board approved the variance with four conditions: - Compliance with sight triangle requirements - Permit requirements to be satisfied - Additional conditions as specified in the staff recommendation **Outcome** The Board unanimously approved the variance request for Mid-America Apartments to reduce the 20-foot setback requirement for the freestanding sign to 0 feet, allowing placement at the property line. ## THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT CO. - Variance to reduce front yard from 70' to 20' **Case Number:** V-2011-74 Thompson Thrift Development Co. requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 70 feet to 20 feet for a residential project. [timestamp: 00:09:52] **Presentation and Discussion** Key speakers Richard Murphy and Mark McIntosh presented information regarding the variance request. The applicant cited floodplain constraints and design preferences as reasons for seeking the reduced front yard setback. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance with conditions. The conditions required compliance with the development plan and adherence to applicable permit requirements. **Board Action** The Board unanimously approved the variance request. ## RHONDA HENZMAN - Conditional use permit for home occupation (embroidery services) **Agenda Item C-2011-69** Rhonda Henzman requested a conditional use permit to operate a home-based embroidery business. [timestamp: 00:13:47] Staff recommended approval of the permit with conditions requiring compliance with applicable zoning rules and occupancy restrictions. The Board unanimously approved the conditional use permit for the home occupation. ## JAMES D. ATKINSON - Administrative review for second detached garage **Agenda Item A-2011-68** James Atkinson requested administrative review approval for a second detached garage on his property. The proposed structure would exceed the lot coverage limits otherwise applicable to the property. Staff presented a recommendation for approval, citing two primary factors supporting the request: the property contained ample lot space to accommodate the additional structure, and there was neighborhood precedent for similar approvals in the area. Scott Book presented information on the matter [timestamp: 00:15:20]. The Board voted unanimously to approve the request. The approval was granted subject to two conditions. **Outcome:** Approved ## BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS - Administrative review for third wall sign [timestamp: 00:04:59] BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS requested approval for a third wall sign to be located in a professional office zone. Richard Murphy presented the matter to the Board. Staff recommended disapproval of the request, citing zoning limitations that restrict the number of wall signs permitted in the professional office zone and noting prior conditions that would be violated by approval of an additional sign. The Board postponed the case rather than ruling on the request at this meeting. The matter is scheduled to be reconsidered on December 16, 2011. ## BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC - Conditional use permit for agricultural market and recreational facility **Case Number:** C-2011-70 **Applicant Request:** Boone Creek Adventures, LLC sought a conditional use permit for a recreational facility featuring tree houses and zip lines, along with an agricultural market component. **Key Speaker:** Bruce Simpson **Staff Recommendation:** The staff recommended postponement of this case due to incomplete site plans and unclear land use designation for the proposed project. **Board Action:** The Board voted to postpone the case to November 18, 2011, to allow for additional information and clarification to be submitted. **Discussion:** [timestamp: 00:07:05] The case was presented with concerns regarding the adequacy of the submitted site plans and the need for clearer definition of how the land would be used. The incomplete documentation prevented the Board from making a determination on the conditional use permit at that time. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve minutes of September 30, 2011 meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone A-2011-71: BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS until December 16, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone C-2011-70: BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC until November 18, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone V-2011-72: JAMES M. LUDKA until November 18, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve V-2011-73: MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS (variance to reduce 20’ setback to 0’ for freestanding sign) as recommended by staff with four conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve V-2011-74: THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT CO. (variance to reduce front yard from 70’ to 20’ for Group Residential Project) as recommended by staff with three conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve C-2011-69: RHONDA HENZMAN (conditional use permit for home occupation: embroidery services) as recommended by staff with three conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve A-2011-68: JAMES D. ATKINSON (administrative review for second detached garage) as recommended by staff with two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue V-2011-58: JAMES HICKEY until January 27, 2012 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone V-2011-72: JAMES M. LUDKA until November 18, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn meeting --- ## Full transcript I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the room. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All those who are coming in, would you please come in and grab a seat. Before we get started, we have some minutes we need to approve from September the 30th. So, board, if you have read these minutes which we received, we'll hear a motion. If we have questions about it before the motion, please address that. Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve. I hear a second. Second. Anyone object? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion passes. We will ask that you turn off cell phones, please. If you have them, please turn them all, put them on silent. If you have to step outside for a call, please feel free to do that. Also, those of you who are here in opposition to programs or appeals, we would ask that, if it's possible, that you and the appellant step outside, see if you can work out the arrangement relative to your disagreements. If you can't, then we will hear it here in this room. we would also ask all of you who are going to participate in the program would you please stand and raise your right hand please all who are going to be participating you swear to tell the truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you have a seat We will sound the agenda in an order that where we have postponements or withdrawals. We will ask the staff at this time if you have any individuals that are requesting postponements, would you please come forward? List your case, your name, and the case, please. mr chairman i'm dick murphy on page four of your agenda the under administrative reviews number two a 2011-71 ball and right capital holdings property at 998 governor's lane we are requesting a postponement to your december meeting which i guess will be about six or seven weeks there's a text amendment going through the council right now which may have an impact on this and so we wanted to allow time for that to go through and didn't think three weeks to your next meeting would would be enough so I'm representing the applicant we request a postponement till the December meeting staff you have any questions or concerns no sir we would just point out your meeting in December is on the 16th due to the holidays. December 16th is that I would you Mr. Murphy? Board any questions? I have a motion to accept please. Mr. Chair I move we postpone a 2011-71 to the December 16th meeting. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Thank you. December the 16th. Staff, withdrawals. Are there any withdrawals? For Boone Creek Adventures, which is at the top of page 4 of the agenda, C-2011-70, that's one the staff had recommended postponement of. Bruce Simpson's representing them, and we have a letter from Mr. Simpson requesting a postponement. Is there anyone here who we're anticipating here in this case in opposition? If not, staff, do I hear a motion, please? Do we accept the postponement? Mr. Chair, Item C, 2011-70 Boone Creek Adventures, Appeals for a Conditional Use Permit to Construct and Operate an Agriculture Market and Outdoor Recreational Facility be postponed until the... Mr. This would be to November 18th. This would be to November 18th. I thought it was November from November. The next meeting. Okay, good. Would be November 18th. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? So be it. And we will sound the cases. Those who have opposition or hear from opposition, if it can't be worked on outside, we will take those cases close to the end of the meeting. Case number one. V2011-58 James Hickey Is James Hickey in the building? James Hickey, is there anyone here in opposition to this particular? Yes. We have one in opposition and we will move that to the close to the end, please. The next case. is James M. Lutka. James M. Lutka. Lutka, excuse me. James Lutka. Is there anyone in here that's in opposition to this particular case? Staff, have you heard from Mr. Lutka? Talked to them within the last couple of days, but they're not here yet. We'll try and call them on the phone. The next case is V211-73, Mid-American Apartments. Anyone here representing Mid-American Apartments? Is anyone here in opposition to Mid-American Apartments? Thank you. We will hear your case as it falls, please. case v2 011-74 thompson thrift development company thompson thrift Development Company. Is there anyone here in opposition? No opposition. Conditional use appeals C0 at 11-69 Rhonda Hensman. Is there anyone here in opposition? Okay The next case is 2011-68 James A. Atkinson. Is there anyone here in opposition to James D. Atkinson? Excuse me, I said A. James D. Atkinson case. No opposition. I think that takes care of all of them. We will start with Mr. Hickey. You will move to the last. We have one opposition here. we will start here with Lucas not here so we will go down to Mid American Apartments case number 2011 73 Mid American Apartments if you please come forward list your name hi my name is Stephanie Beck miss Stephanie the staff has recommended approval of this subject to four conditions. Have you read and do you understand those conditions? Yes I have. Are you willing to abide by those conditions? Yes we are. You have any questions about them? No. Are there any questions from staff? Any questions from the board? If not I will hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V-2011-73 Mid-America's Apartments Appeal for a Variance to Reduce the Required 20-Foot Setback for a freestanding identification sign to zero feet in a high-density apartment R4 zone on property located at 151 South Locust Hill Drive, Council District 7, as recommended by staff. and with the conditions as recommended by staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Good luck with it. Thank you. The next case is the Thompson Thrift Development Company. Mr. Murphy, just for the record, tell us who you are, please. I'm Dick Murphy, and I represent Thompson Thrift Development Company, and Mark McIntosh from HDR Engineers is with us as well on behalf of Thompson Thrift. Mr. Murphy, the staff has recommended approval with subject to three conditions. Have you and your client read and understand those conditions? Yes, we have. You agree to abide by those conditions? Staff, do you have any questions? concerning it board any questions if not i'll hear a motion please mr chair i move to approve v 2011-74 thompson thrift development company appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard for a residential a group residential project from 70 feet to 20 feet in a high density apartment or four zone on property located at 2391 Sir Barton Way as recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Thank you. The next case is C2011-69 Rhonda Hensman. Hello, I'm Rhonda Hensman. Rhonda Hensman. The staff, Rhonda, has recommended approval of your request subject to three conditions. Have you read and do you understand those conditions? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Are there any questions from staff? Any questions from the board? Comments? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2011-69 Rhonda Hensman appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation and embroidery services in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 3033 Tates Creek Road Council District 4 be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff. I have a second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Brings us down to Mr. James Atkinson, I believe. James D. Atkinson. Case number 2011-68. Are you Mr. Atkinson? I'm actually Scott Book with Economy Home Improvement. I'm acting as Mr. Atkinson's agent. Mr. Atkinson, the staff has recommended approval of this request. However, they have two conditions. Have you read, have you and your client read the conditions? Yes, sir. You understand those conditions? Yes, sir. You agreed to abide by those conditions? We do. Staff, do you have any questions? Board, any questions or comments? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve A-2011-68 James D. Atkinson's appeal for an administrative review to allow a second detached garage, resulting in accessory structures exceeding the allowable lot coverage and being larger than 50 percent of the size of the principal residence in a single-family residential R-1B zone on property located at 450 Kingston Road as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify the saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Good luck. Thank you. Now we have one case here I think that had mr. Hickey James Hickey case number v2 11-5 8 mr. Hickey mr. James Hickey I'll take a second to get situated here, if I may. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I do represent James Hickey, and we're requesting variances at 3606 Windgate Way. I do have some exhibits to pass out, which I'll bring up to you all. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, over here, Jim. Mr. Lewis. I'm a friend of the applicant, so I'm going to recuse myself on this case. We have, uh, Jimmy's going to recuse himself. Anyone else up here have a concern with this case? Now, you do know that the staff has recommended postponement of this case. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and we are actually agreeable with the postponement, but I understand that I haven't had any direct contact with the neighbors, but Mr. Hickory has, and I understand the neighbors are anxious to get this resolved, so we're willing to go forward with it because of that. I am going to request that we in-depth, there are three variances here. I want to explain what's going on. First of all, Jim Hickey is here, who's with me, who's the owner of the property at 3606 Windgate Way. And we do have support from, I think, nearly all our neighbors, except for obviously one who's here in opposition, and they have every right to come here and voice their opinion on that. Like I said, there's three variances involved on this property. one on the rear 20-foot setback line do you have anything we can see up there on the screen yeah I can I can put something up here look please thank the We've got the site plan we can put up here. There we go. The variances requested are, first of all, in the rear of the property. This deck is actually built over the property line. And on either side, it is not built over the property line, but there's a three-foot setback requirement under the current zoning ordinance. Now we have, I know you all postponed this last month, and during that month Mr. Hickey has gotten with his neighbors and was successful with one neighbor and unsuccessful with another. It got close, but there was a disagreement on price. But the one in the rear, and in my handouts at page 4, we have a letter from the owner of the property in the rear, Mr. Gary Dillingham, who's the president of Terrace Realty and Development, which owns that property. And as he indicates in that letter, Mr. Hickey and him have gotten together and agreed that Terrace will transfer to Mr. Hickey a strip of land along the back so that the deck may stay and that he will meet his 20-foot setback line. So that is in the works. The surveyor has been hired to do that. They have to do a consolidation plan with the Planning Commission, and that will take a little bit of time. So what I'm going to request on the rear setback line is an indefinite postponement. What that will allow will give us time to do this, and then once that's done, I will withdraw the variance request. if I'm a lawyer and I have to be paranoid about things happening, so I'm asking for an indefinite postponement so that if we do have to come back to you, it means we don't have to pay another filing fee and that we don't have to wait out the six-month period. But if we did come back to you after an indefinite postponement, we would have to re-notify all the neighbors, just like it was a new hearing. so everybody would get notification of that. But we're real confident that's going to be worked out. As I said, the surveyor is on the job doing the consolidation plat, so we think there's not going to be an issue about the back variance there or setback. So what we're asking for today in front of you is a variance for the deck along the side from three feet to one and a half feet. It's right there. That's on the south side. North is looking that way on this one. And then on the north side, we're asking for a variance from three feet to nine inches in order to retain this portion of the addition of the building right here and also for the little portion of the deck right there. What are you asking for on the north side? On the north side, three feet to nine inches. And on the south side, we're asking three feet to one and a half feet for a side yard variance on these. And as I said, Mr. Hickey's been working with his neighbors. The neighbor to the south has a letter in the file, which is either page one or page two. page one that's mr godby who says he owns a property next door to the south he has no problem with giving him this one and a half foot variance and the other variances he is requesting from the board and we have a letter at page two from the neighbor across the street who supports the variances he said this sunroom addition adds value to my property and the rest of the neighborhood And then at page three, we have a petition from most everybody on that block. It's a little cul-de-sac there. And the people have signed a petition in support of this. They say it's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. And they say this has added value to the neighborhood because it was so well constructed and is aesthetically pleasing both inside and out and can only increase our property values. I have a few pictures I do want to show you in a minute, but I want to discuss with you just a couple things before I get to those. This property was built about 30 years ago. This is Walden Grove subdivision, and I'm getting to the age where I can remember these things coming through. I was here, I think, at the city when Dave Walker, who was the developer of Walden Grove, came up with this concept, and he wanted to do something different with development here in Lexington. He wanted a contemporary look, and he wanted to respect the topography of the area. So you can see out there, if you drove out there, the homes are contemporary-style homes. They mostly have wood siding, and outside, they're different architecturally from typical subdivisions. They're what I call California-style or contemporary-style, and they respect the topography. He didn't flatten this property. These houses, for instance, they slope downward from Windgate Way going down toward the treed area in the back. And he kept the treed area in the back. And that was a focal point of this development. All the properties have decks out into the treed area. It's really very lovely if you've been out there. And Jim has a contemporary house. It's open design with a lot of light, and the deck is a living space. And an important thing we've just recently discovered on checking the records on this is that when this subdivision was built back in the 1980s, and I've got in my packet just to show you when the houses were built, because it's important when the houses were built here, back on page 5 and 6, I have the property valuation administrator printout for Jim's property here. And as you can see on page two, it says year built was 1983. Then on page seven and eight, I have the printout for the property next door to us to the north, the Harris property. And as you can see again on page eight, it shows that this property, their property was built in 1983. And the reason I put that in there was because in 1983, in the R3 zone, you remember this was at the time when zero-lot line houses became popular. We'd run through a recession, and at the same time, we were starting in Lexington to understand that we had to get more units on the land that we had available that was left. So these are smaller lots, and at the time these were built, you were allowed to build up to the property line, right up to the zero property line. You could build to that. Now, the rule was you had to keep six feet between your house and the next house. And if you've seen some of the other subdivisions around town, maybe weren't done quite as nicely as this, but a lot of them, you'll see the wall of one house right at zero on the property line, and then it gives a yard for the next house, but then that next house on the other side is built up to zero on the property line as well. Now, these houses weren't built that way originally, but they had that ability and they were planted and they were designed under that concept where you could go up to a zero line on the property line. Now, at some point, the ordinance was amended to require that each house stay three feet away from the line after these houses were built. and I know there's a lot of discussion about that original one where people would put air conditioning units or trash cans and stuff and block access from going back and that amendment was part of all that but I think it's important to recognize that these houses and Dave Walker's concept of Walton Grove subdivision was done when you're allowed to build up to zero property line and that was later changed. Why we're here is because about a year ago, Jim finished this addition to his house. This portion of the house, the footprint had been a deck previously. Right here, there was a deck on the same footprint as this notch is coming around here and going back here. and the deck was closer than three feet to the property line as well. He went and built an addition to his house without a building permit. And so we have to be up front with you. And there was no building permit issued. There were nothing I can say can justify not having a building permit. There were some things going on and reasons which I'll tell you about. But no, we didn't have a building permit. He should have. You know he should have. I know he should have. But the thing I've discovered in doing this for 30-some years is a lot of people don't know that. And we're here before you in a case where we did not have a building permit for this. But he was called. Building inspection got a call after this was built and after Jim had moved into it and after he'd spent $70,000 or $80,000 doing this addition on the property. This is a property which has, I think, an assessed value. It's in the record of $130,000. Now, at that time, he didn't have a contractor working on this. He did the work himself with his friends, so he didn't have a contractor that would know to get a permit. At that time, he had a sister who was seriously ill, I think, and was taking up a lot of his sort of psychic energy to duel that situation. And it's not uncommon in the neighborhood for people to do addition-type things without a permit. I think on the house to the north here, there's a deck that had been put on, plus a screened-in porch that had been put on right next to us also without a building permit. So I'm not saying that to justify it because he didn't have a permit, But I'm trying to just put that in context, let you know what was involved and what was going on with him at that time. But regardless of whether a permit was issued, I think a variance is fully justified on this property that we have. I have a few photographs I want to show you about this. And, you can start through one. Just showing you these photographs of what the addition is. The first photograph is from the interior of the house, looking out to the addition. The addition is this brighter area through there. As you can see, it's consistent with the rest of the house. You can't see the rest of the house in picture, but bright, open, contemporary style design. And if you look at the second picture, this second picture shows that little notch heading toward the north of the property next door. Now, as you can see here, I'm showing this to show that this is the wall that is nine inches off the property line right here. Now, I'm showing that because previously in that same location there was a double-decker deck sitting there. And the person on the deck obviously would have a view into the property to the north. This one, you do not have a view into the property to the north. There's only that one little window right there. And we understand under the building code that may need to be removed as well. But you're not sitting there having a view into the property you have next door. We think it has actually increased the privacy of the property to the north of us. The third picture is the exterior shot. We're standing behind looking at the deck or the addition face on. That just gives you an idea. and I've been in it and I have never been in a addition which has been better constructed than this. It is truly outstanding and truly almost breathtaking when you get in how well it's been done, the bright open airy feeling you have inside. It's truly an outstanding job of construction that Mr. Hickey has done even on the deck where you build it where somebody like me would just build at right angles when he has a change in direction on the deck he's cut the pieces like in a pie shape all to fit together it's it's it's the ultimate in craftsmanship in what he has accomplished there um i want to show you next we're looking at the context of this this variance on the north side this is the property looking looking at the property from from Windgate Wade. On the left is the, I think, the Harris property to the north of us. On the right, you can see Mr. Hickey's house is obscured by some of the trees looking from the street. But that's our street view. This is the, you can see the addition right back there peeking out through the trees right there. And if you could show the next picture, I think this is important. And I'll show you a sketch of this in a minute, but these have sort of what I call sort of complementary notches in the buildings. When we're up front, we're standing with our back to the street here, looking down that property line on the north. On the left here is the property next to us. Would they have a notch out toward the front of the property? And here's Mr. Hickey's house. And then obviously the property to the next of us notches in here, and his notch is out. the distance well let's just see the next picture we're going to look at the opposite direction we're standing in the back looking toward the street now and again you can see now now mr. Hickey's property is on the left we're looking toward the street windgate way is up there this is the this is the addition there it's what about 12 feet Jim I think in that measurement 11 and a half feet right from here to here and that's the notch and he goes back in and his neighbors notches out toward the toward the street up there now the the next shot I think this is the last one just is another picture showing his his addition now here we have a sketch on the dimensions That's in your packet. This is a little darker copy that you can see a little better. Again, the street is down here. Now this is the existing, what I'm showing is sort of the complementary notches here. At the front, where the existing dimension between the two houses is 7 feet and 10 inches. In the back, even after Mr. Hickey has built his addition here, this dimension is 11 feet 6 inches. So we are still in the back after doing the addition. We are more than 10 feet away from the house next door. And as you know, the ordinance requires a separation of 6 feet through those. So we wanted to do that to show you that we're still maintaining the distance between the houses out there. On these lots, they have not been built as close as possible together, at least in this situation. I know some of the other houses on the street may be six feet from each other. But these houses are not six feet from each other. And even doing this addition, which was built on the footprint of an existing deck, we're still 11 feet 6 inches from the house next door to us on the north. And one reason I showed you the pictures is I think we've had some concern that the addition would somehow lower property values. And we think you can see from the pictures that certainly that is not the case. the people who have put in the letters to you and the other neighbors have in fact said that this addition raises the property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Hickey also spoke with the chairman of the board of appraisers in Kentucky, Larry Disney in Frankfort, who described the situation, and Mr. Disney also felt that this would in no way lower property values in this neighborhood. It's well constructed. It's very beautiful. It, I think, gives more privacy than was there today prior to this, and we feel certain this will not lower property values. As I said, I feel the topography and the layout of these houses fully justifies the variance. He is completely on his property line. He did build it without a permit, but I think even without a permit it would be justified. I guess one concern I have in this case is that, yes, Mr. Hickey did not get a building permit. But there's a doctrine in law they call latches, which means you cannot sit on your rights. In other words, you can't sit and watch somebody do something that you know is going to cause you damage and is not allowed by the law and just let them do it and wait until they're finished, wait until they've spent a bunch of money, and then say, I want that taken down. You have to say that when it starts, not when the whole thing is done. We're concerned building inspection did their job just as they're supposed to. They got a call after this was finished. and after this was occupied and so i know there's an issue about mr hickey not getting a building permit but on the same on the same token i think if we're going to be objecting to the fact that this violates a side yard setback line even though that line wasn't there when these houses were built that we wait until the house is built before we make the objection to the division of building inspection here. As I said, we have letters of support from all our other neighbors on all other sides. The neighbor behind is going out of his way to work with Jim to allow that deck to stay because that deck is such an asset to the area. We do have a variance we're requesting on the south side for this deck here. That is only for the deck. Again, there was a deck there before. Again, we have a letter in the file from the neighbor on the south side supporting the grant of that variance for the deck. And we feel, again, the topography and all the other things I mentioned apply to that one on the south side as well. So it's a difficult situation to be in. Jim is certainly embarrassed to be in that situation. He now obviously knows that he has to get a building permit before he does something like this. In his defense, he had a lot of stuff going on in his life. There was a deck there before on the same footprint. When this was built, there wasn't that three-foot setback line on this house. It's in agreement with the architectural layout of Walden Grove subdivision, and we do preserve the privacy of the property next door. We think it's in keeping with the concept that Dave Walker had when he originally built this subdivision. So we think that the variance is fully justified legally. I have given you findings as the last page of my handout, proposed findings, which would support the grant of a zone change. we thank you very much for hearing this we obviously hope you'll vote in favor of this and we'd be certainly happy to answer any questions you all might have about it before we address the questions because I have two or three I want to ask you I want to hear from the objectors here and then we'll come back to you yes sir we'd ask that you give your name please and your address. Good afternoon. My name is Greg Harris, 3604 Wind Gateway in Lexington. This is Lynn. I'm Lynn Harris. So I gather you and your husband and wife. Actually, it's my ex-wife. She still has dealings with property, so she wanted to be here. All right. You've heard their side of the story. Let's hear what you have to say regarding this as an objector, please. Okay. First of all, I just want to say I'm in agreement in the fact that it's a beautiful building. My problem is that while the gentleman here mentioned about waiting until the last minute, Mr. Hickey's profession is in working with copper and different things and going to building sites and this sort of thing. we had we had discussed the previous deck that they had mentioned the double deck with a corrugated plastic some sort of a cover it was supposed to be some sort of little shed that was set on the side of it that was pushed up against the the side of the property now this was probably seven six seven eight years ago whatever it was i can't recall it's been a number of years that that was there and one of the issues i had was the fact that that sat on the edge of the property with sloped roof allowing the every bit of the moisture coming down into my yard and it's washed it all the way down the side of the fence i mentioned it to mr hickey several times over the course of uh over the course of time that that was just not acceptable he did put some sort of a gutter system up there which over time grew its own little set of trees and what have you it was not maintained and when this came together he pulled that down he started putting this up i had no objections to the to the addition on there none whatsoever and assuming that because there's being inspections and what have you going on there that that i'm i'm just stuck with this thing when it's put on the property line like that it wasn't until i decided i wanted to put a fence in i called to find out what my rights were to put this thing in there because the house was put over there that someone mentioned to me about the possibility that this thing they didn't show any sign of having any kind of a building permit on there so I wasn't waiting until the thing got built I didn't realize that I had even I had any rights to this thing and so when I questioned it someone come out and took a look at it come back and said there's there's nothing wrong and that's when I spoke up and said well it's not exactly in the footprint the deck is a lot larger the house is is not a it's not something they're maintaining it's something that's been just added on so that's kind of where this whole thing came together the problem rolls in that it's nine inches away from the property line the building itself is nine inches off the property line the fence that you saw in the pictures is just barely off the property line the roof hangs over now you can come out you can look at the roof actually hangs over everything off this large expanse of roof is going to roll over into my yard it's going to continue to rut this out a series of gutters whatever the other side is there's no ability for him to maintain that property he can't get in the backyard unless he comes through my yard or neighbor's yard or that little little piece of variance he's got on the other side or comes down at the end of the street uh at the end of my street the neighbor next to me that's a is a dead end and there's a there's a way to come in back through behind everyone's house to get in there his ability to maintain that property is limited to working in my yard when he came in to take to use this property to to make these changes he asked me if he could use my yard for just a few weeks while he you know brought some stuff in his staging for this and i gave him permission that was sometime in april of 2010 the last uh after he got finished with the erecting the addition they decided to put the siding on his house and do some other things the scaffolding and what have you is left in that yard was still in my side yard is actually on his side of the side yard but in my the same mud rolling over from that to the point where it laid out there and sunk into the ground the the legs on these things that sunk into the ground and it was removed it was removed in february the the time frame of this was in no way was anything on there that was being considerate to to me as a neighbor i don't i don't object to the place i just think that it needs to be in some way within the bounds of what is what is appropriate for that subdivision What may have been the intent in 1983 when the houses were built has been mentioned by Mr. Murphy. Also is mentioned that that was something in the past that is no longer being looked at. And the fact that the houses were approximately 8 feet apart at the front, and he's come over to the property line and still left at 11 feet, that effectively has taken those feet off the edge of my property and if i wanted to do anything there i've got to stay even farther back from the bounce it's effectively just uh it was to me it looked like a little bit of a land grab uh he's he's built the deck the original deck that was there a double decker that was put in and uh at the same time he put the uh the corrugated piece on the back side next to my house that was uh that was a small deck that was there was replaced by this larger deck and it was back pretty far but it was back up next to the edge the footprint of that deck has extended those additional six or eight feet on the back side into that so not necessarily the same footprint but there you know it's it's within ballpark are you getting water still from that situation when it rains uh well yes sir i mean it's it's it's there i've actually i had uh i had a field stone patio and i pulled the field stones out and replaced it because they were starting to wash out and i put those rocks in there alongside the fence to kind of help keep that from from washing out but yeah it's still there as a matter of fact on the pictures there that you saw showing the difference between our houses uh one thing i'd like to point out is every one of those pictures was taken from my yard because you couldn't get in his yard to get the pictures taken so i mean you know that's that's the point i'm trying to make is that his building is now going to require me to allow him to have access to get in to maintain his own property let me ask you a question yes sir the building's already been constructed right it's up and nothing can be done about that from us from our standpoint what would satisfy you in this situation relative to what he's requesting right now? He's talked with someone that's given him information that it's not going to detract from my property values. One of the problems I have with this is I had someone look at my property and said that that was not something that would be possible to leave like that on the old one. I'm looking at this. If I'm living across the street or two doors down, it probably has been a value to me. But when it comes to being the actual neighbor that this is sitting on top of, it's not something that's being reasonable. I'm not sure what would be the – I mean, Mr. Hickey wanted to give me a couple thousand dollars to purchase a variance to take care of his – to allow him to have the right to leave that window in and everything he's done. And, you know, I didn't think, first of all, I didn't think it was fair to me. He was, he's trying to basically go in there. I mean, he's in the line of work. He shouldn't know these things about variances, at least know to question that. And for me to go in after he's made this obvious error and lack of judgment and not taking the time to check what's going on before he built this place, Now it's my responsibility to sit back, accept the variance, and allow this to continue on the way it is at no real harm to him. I'm the one that's left-faced holding the situation. And the fact that I'm sitting here with a side yard that still looks like a feedlot next to me because it's still not done anything but had some weeds growing I'm trying to mow. Anything that's got to be done in there, it's going to have to come through me. I'm not sure what would be fair. I don't want to see him tear it down. I like Jim. Jim's not being a bad neighbor. But under these circumstances, I'm put in a situation where I've kind of been a jerk about it and either stand up for my rights or back up and just say whatever and sit back there and look at this thing and just be sick of it every time I go outside in a house that is, quite frankly, my equity. In your opinion, can it be rectified without tearing anything down? uh i mean i've tried we we we attempted to talk uh he uh he i gave him a i gave him a figure he didn't want that figure i'm not sure what else we can do i mean if there's anything else i'd be open to listen to it but uh one thing i've got i've got going is that i'm i'm probably leaving the area and i want to get this set up so that I can have this put put away and put to rest before I go and let me understand let me understand what you've just said to me you gave him a figure to do what I gave him a figure for the variance in other words he wanted me to he wanted me to sell him similar to what the I guess the person behind from what I understand has has sold him a little strip of land down there and is going through uh I assume planning was going to work up something he wanted to do the same thing on the side yard which would allow him to have that variance to allow him to leave that window that's in the side on the north side of the house a little small window so are you telling me that you're willing to be uncomfortable if he pays for it i'm well i'm not no sir i prefer to have the thing fixed i prefer to have the thing fixed i don't particularly want i don't particularly i just like to have the thing the way it was where it was back here where the where it's neighbors are separated by the fence the fence is right up against his house but neighbors are separated by the fence i don't want that thing coming over there and no sir i'm not trying to be difficult but you know one of us is going to be happy one of us is going to be sad and this is and under circumstances it looks like it's uh it's going to be me if if i back off on the variance on it i don't particularly uh i just don't like it there all right thank you sir Do you have anything to say, ma'am? Thank you. Can I ask a question? Just so I understand, you're concerned about your property value. Right. Foremost. And secondly, you've got an issue with some water that's coming onto your property. Have you all discussed the possibility of having some experts come in there and working with the water issue? You know, if you did some landscaping or you did some work with rock or drainage pipes or anything like that? Well, there's been some talk where he's offered to come in there and redo the side yard. But at the same time, he wasn't completely finished with what he was doing over there. And so I said, well, I don't want anything done to the side yard until you get finished moving back and forth. And to tell you the truth, on the side yard with that access on there, he's going to have to continue to come back and forth through their traips and back through whatever he puts in. I mean, you know, the access to that place is either through that yard, through my yard, or, you know, quite frankly, through his house to get back there. The house is, the yard in the back is not, it's pretty much the deck is the yard. Obviously, the deck goes beyond the yard, so there's not anything that needs to be mowed, but any maintenance and stuff that goes on there is going to have to have access to it, and that's where it's coming into it. And there's a fence between your, I mean, there's the addition and then there's a fence. Is that right? Right. The fence is right, just here's the house and the fence is right on the house. I mean, there's probably an inch or so of room in between the edge of the house and the fence. But it sits up high. The room additions are up high. Yeah, it basically sits over the fence. There's no privacy. No privacy at all. It sits above the fence. The back of the deck sits out like this and the fence goes down the hill and the back of the deck sits here. So, I mean, you know, basically when you look out, it's right there. Now there are some plants and some stuff with the growth and coming in there and there are some other things. And I'm less concerned about that part of it as I am just the fact that the house is around the line. It's, you know, it's just not an acceptable situation. So I have a question. I don't know if it will go to you or the staff. So you're suggesting that there's sufficient land that you could sell a strip of your property to him so he would no longer need a variance? He asked me if I would be willing to do that. I told him that I would be willing to work something out as long as the thing sat just like it was, and he didn't have that for access. In other words, he couldn't come over there after he got that and then start moving his fence back over three or four feet or whatever it is over to satisfy that variance. By parents' sake, it would still look like it is. I would still maintain this side of the fence. He maintains his side of the fence. but uh there was um you know i feel like that one of the things is one of the things that's been held up is that i'm i look like that i'm sitting back here waiting for something i don't want i don't want his money i just don't want that thing set up like that and when he asked me if i'd be willing to do it and he offered to do it for whatever it was going to cost him to fix that window and i said no it's just not an acceptable thing because basically you're going to have to spend that money anyway one way or the other you want me to do it then you're just going to have to You're going to have to come up with a different figure on it. I gave him a figure. He never wanted to talk about it beyond that. That's fine. I understand. But, you know, personally, I just soon get this thing. I would like to see a way out of this without doing this. Because if he tears it down, if he has to pull something off or anything like that, it's just going to take up more time, more effort. And, you know, we've got to live together. But I'm just not going to sit back and just, okay, whatever. Because there just wasn't any thought put into it. And, I mean, it's kind of like his line of work. Any other questions from the board? I have a couple. As well, building, what can you tell me about this particular project and this situation? And what was your, I guess, what was your findings relative to, we know he did it wrong without a permit, but where do we go from here with this? If you leave it the way it is, and the fence stays where it is, the property line, and all that remains, we will go back in and make him rate that left side property line wall to a certain rating. The window will have to be closed up. So the fire ratings are going to be the big issue of getting the wall constructed correctly. You said rate? What does rate mean? Rate. A fire rating. That's an assembly of materials that provide a certain amount of time of fire suppression. It's not a fire proofing. It just allows that wall to hold back a fire for a certain amount of time. The building code regulates that based on a number of things. One is distance from the structure to a property line. So that's the big issue we see. Water control. I haven't put my eye on the site, so I don't know if there's a manageable way to handle the runoff, whether it's a larger gutter system, and then piping that down to the ground and away from the property line and managing that way. I feel like there's usually some way to do that. If there's a soffit that hangs over from the wall over the fence close to the property line, obviously that cannot extend over the property line, even with the gutter on it. So in certain cases when we have these real tight property line issues, we just make one straight wall from all the way up the wall to the roof line, and there is no soffit. And then we construct that to a point that the gutter can be hung on that, and all that can be maintained on the correct property. If they want to change the property line, that's certainly up to them. but to us if you want to take it off back to the point of where it started or only give them a variance of maybe 18 inches so they're 18 inches off the property line and he reduces the width of the building gives him a little area to maintain it he gets a little bit wider building this gentleman gets a little more relief off the property line the water issue seems to be easily managed. So we have a lot of options that way. It's just a matter. But to leave it as it is, the fire rating issue is our big concern. Thank you. Walter, you have any dog in this fight? Typically not on a remodel or an addition. We look at mainly new home construction, but obviously if we're called to give our opinion, we'll do that. So we could meet with the property owners and try to come up with a solution to their problem. So, yeah. Do you have anything else to add, sir? No, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you coming in. Mr. Murphy, you or your client may come back up and I have some questions for you and I'm sure the board will have some questions for you. As I listen to them and listen to you, The variances that you are asking for, are they dependent upon the addition to the property line to this gentleman that's going to purchase on the backside? No, the variances assume there's the worst case scenario. No purchase of any property, just as it is today. then why would you ask for this first knowing that there is a possibility of a problem existing relative to him extending over the property line already as it is well he does not extend over the property line we we extend to nine inches at the current time if you remember the the picture of the side the fence is almost on the property line it's all on miss the fence is all on mr. Hickey's side but it's almost on the property line and as you can remember from that picture the wall of the house does not come up to the fence so everything is on mr. Hickey's property right now we do not go over the property line at all that's the I don't know if that's yeah that's the one if If you can brighten that up a little bit, it shows the fence. Well, the fence is sort of a dark blob right now. I think the question here is not so much that as a cumbersome, it's going to be very cumbersome for his neighbor because of this. I don't think he totally objects to what has happened, even though it's happened illegally. I think his concern is that he's not very comfortable because of the circumstances that it's going to create for him next door. Yes, and listening to what Mr. Harris said, the one thing that will happen is if there's no purchase of land on this one, he is going to have to Mr. Hickey is going to have to do what Mr. Hume mentioned we know he's going to have to remove that upper window because that's not fire rated we know that's going to have to be covered up now that will give no opening on this wall which may increase the privacy on the Harris property here as well what happened here I know they did talk among themselves about purchasing a piece of property you've heard the testimony Mr. Hickey offered $2,000 to purchase it. He needs about 24 square feet to push this out two feet along the side of the wall. The counteroffer was $20,000 for that piece, and that's a lot of money. I mean, if you figure that on a square footage basis, that's over $3 million per acre. So Mr. Hickey didn't feel like he could do that. That's why we're here up in front of you. Now, I think the Harris's have legitimate concerns. When we were talking to you about, when he was up here talking, I was talking to Mr. Hickey about what could be proposed if they cannot come to an agreement about purchasing some property like he has in the back. And that would be, we were thinking about, number one, Mr. Hickey would, of course, have to take out the window and meet the fire rating requirements that building inspection has. Number two, we talked about putting on gutters if they help. There's no gutters on this roof right now, if that helps. Number three, putting new sod on there. And we were suggesting that Mr. Hickey, at his expense, hire an engineer who has hydrology expertise, but if the city would consult on that, that would be good, too, to evaluate the situation, to see what needs to be done on the yard here. We don't think there's that much of a drainage issue, but we hear what Mr. Harris is saying and have that evaluated, and if something needs to be done, Mr. Hickey would need to do that. I guess the concern I have, especially if Mr. Harris is trying to sell his property, I understand he is, he's going to want to put it on the market very soon, is that if Mr. Hickey's tears off part of this and this thing is under construction again during the time the property is sold, that would be a worse situation for the Harris property than to have this completed there. anybody buying it can see it's done, it's completed, what they're getting there, rather than have some new construction situation halfway done on the property up there. So we're thinking that if we do those things, that might be a possible solution. In other words, taking out the window, meeting the code issues, putting on gutters, if those are called for, if those will indeed help the drainage situation, putting new sod and getting an engineer with some hydrology, some water expertise to look at this. And obviously that would be at Mr. Hickey's expense, the solution. But he'd talk to both parties. Mr. Murphy, you've been around me a long time, haven't you? Yeah, longer than I want to admit, yes. Long time. Mr. Dickey, you haven't been around us much, have you? Not much. In my opinion, sitting here listening to both sides of this and listening to your representative here, if I had to vote right now, my vote would be no. I think this needs to be moved indefinitely until you all can get this situation worked out to the satisfaction of the building, to the satisfaction of the water, to the satisfaction of your neighbors. I understand you've got people here that are in favor of you doing this but they don't live close to you they don't live right next door to you you have a gentleman here who I think has made good common sense presentation to me and to this board I don't know the feelings of the board when they vote but I from what I hear this is not ready for this board to take action on and I think you as the owner and with your representative I think you can go a mile and mile and mile here and get this thing straightened out before you come back to us and I have nothing wrong with you with the building other back I think it is marvelous building but you've added but I don't know how far it extends over I don't have tape measure out there I don't know how far extends I don't know whether he's right or Mr. Murphy's right. And I think the recommendation that the staff made was a pretty good recommendation, that this be postponed. If you want it postponed indefinitely, that's up to you. But I just don't feel that in good conscience that I could sit here and make a sound determination relative to the request at this time. I don't think I could from what I've heard. I have a lot of respect for your representative. but I just don't think that this is a good move because you're only going to alienate whether he stays there or not you're going to alienate the next person that comes in to live there what you offered him versus what he offered you is irrelevant it's what's right and what's wrong in my opinion Mr. Murphy Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning we were agreeable to the staff's recommending of the postponement of this. We were going forward out of respect for Mr. Harris because we knew he wanted to have this heard because of his situation with selling his house. We are still agreeable to a postponement if that's the will of this board. Well, I don't think at this point we can postpone. I think we could continue. Excuse me, continue, yes. So it's up to you all what the recommendation is. If it takes us to this vote right here, I have a feeling what it's going to be. But that's my opinion. If you're going to ask for a postponement with the understanding before you come back before us that you all try to get these things worked out, I think that's the best avenue for you to go. I will request a continuance. And I don't know if you want to, I don't think a continuance until November is enough. It's only three weeks. We're not going to have everybody out there looking at it. If you'd want to continue it to December or if you want to continue it indefinitely until we bring it back, either one of those would be agreeable to us. If I was sitting in Mr. Hickey's place, I know what I'd do. Indefinite continuance, I think, is problematic for a lot of reasons. It's an enforcement issue. There's public safety issues right now with the fire situation, ratings, the way it was constructed. I think it needs to be a time certain. What about Mr. Marks? What about Mr. Murphy? Would January 27th, that would be, is that a reasonable time? You might need to hear from the neighbor. Mr. Harris? I would have no problem with the continuous of January 27th with just my feelings on that, that that would be the last continuance, because at some point this has got to move on forward. So hopefully we can make some sort of, come to some sort of agreement, understanding, compensation, whatever you call it. I hope that could be rational. Well, it's rational, sir, but the number I gave him was in direct response to the number he gave me, and I have no desire to have his money. I mentioned that in front of this. I don't want his money. I want this thing to go back just the way it was. We're good neighbors, just like good fences make good neighbors when something hangs over the fence. And, yes, it does hang over the fence. The fence is this far off the pens, and the roof comes over. So, like I said, I have no problem with the continuance. Mr. Stout, Mr. Chair, I'd like to, and echo in Catherine's comments, Mr. Murphy has already mentioned several issues. And I think Mr. Harris, as you say, Mr. Stout, has been very reasonable. And I know if I was a neighbor, I'd probably feel the same way. Obviously, you two have been friends and neighbors for quite some time. And I'm with Mr. Stout. If I was having a vote today, I couldn't have a vote to approve. So what I'd like to do, if it's okay with my colleagues, I'd like to move that item V, 2011-58, James Hickey, The appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 3 feet to 9 inches for retention of a home addition and a variance to reduce the required rear yard from 10 feet to 0 for the retention of a deck and the planned residential neighborhood R3 zone on property located at 3606 Windgate Way be continued until January 27th in hopes that they can work this out. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Now did we have someone that didn't show up here today? Yes Mr. Chairman on page two of your agenda v2011-72 the variance request by James and Ludka I spoke with mr. Ludka on the telephone initially he thought he would attempt to come to the meeting he was under the impression that your meeting started much later in the afternoon and he certainly wanted to me to relay his apologies to the board for that misunderstanding he later phoned back about 1 30 and said he was in the south end of Lexington and did not think he could make it back in time for your meeting today. We discussed postponement he said he would be agreeable to postponing to your November 18th meeting and we have a suggestion to postpone this to November the 18th. Is that right? Yes sir. Do I have a motion from the board to accept? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion to carry. Thank you. That brings us to the end of the day. Board, do you have anything for us or do I call for a motion to adjourn? We would ask you to consider adoption of your meeting and filing schedule for next year. If you would please we distribute that to you. There's something we take with us to do that in yes, sir. I Have a motion to adjourn Second All in favor say aye We are adjourned do you want us to approve the we'll put it on your November agenda We are not gonna do anything to it Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.