# Board of Adjustment Meeting - February 24, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 24, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2416 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2416?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-02-24 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 18,041 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 February 24, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Louis Stout presiding. The board considered eight agenda items, heard four public comments, and took nine votes during the session. Seven of the eight items were approved, including variances and conditional use permits for residential and commercial projects, as well as requests from religious and civic organizations. One item—a variance request from Thoroughbred Homes, LLC to reduce front yard setback—was postponed. The approved items included a variance for Justin Weekley to reduce rear setback for a carport, a conditional use permit for Jehovah's Witnesses Trustees to expand their church, and a conditional use permit for Brenda Tollett's indoor recreational facility. The board also approved a conditional use permit for Steve Snowden to extend B-1 zoning into an R-1C zone, a conditional use permit for the Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation to operate a historic house museum, a conditional use permit for New Hope IPC, Inc. to construct a church with accessory parking, and a variance for Village Green Builders to increase driveway width. ## Attendance **Present:** - Louis Stout - Barry Stumbo - Janice Meyer - James Griggs - Thomas Glover - Kathryn Moore **Absent:** - Noel White **Late:** - Kathryn Moore ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from November 18, 2011** [timestamp: 00:01:06] Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Griggs. Passed unanimously with all six members voting in favor: Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, James Griggs, Thomas Glover, and Kathryn Moore. **V-2012-7: Variances for Carport at 3974 Weber Way** [timestamp: 00:10:34] Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Ms. Meyer. Passed unanimously. The variance reduces the rear setback from 16.6 feet to 6 inches for a carport. All six members voted in favor. Conditions include compliance with the submitted site plan, obtaining necessary permits from the Division of Building Inspection, ensuring no part of the carport crosses the property line, and installing guttering to direct stormwater away from the neighboring property. **C-2012-2: Conditional Use Permit for Church Expansion at 400 Kingston Road** [timestamp: 00:11:38] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Moore. Passed unanimously. The permit allows expansion of the church structure, increased parking, and addition of sidewalks. All six members voted in favor. Conditions require construction in accordance with the submitted application and site plan, and obtaining all necessary permits from the Divisions of Planning and Building Inspection. **C-2012-3: Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Recreational Facility at 741 Miles Point Way** [timestamp: 00:12:40] Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Griggs. Passed unanimously. The permit establishes an indoor recreational facility. All six members voted in favor. Conditions include compliance with the submitted site plan, obtaining necessary permits, and ensuring any food service remains accessory in nature and subject to Fayette County Board of Health approval. **C-2012-4: Conditional Use Permit for Bakery at 1616 Liberty Road & 720 Henry Clay Boulevard** [timestamp: 00:15:58] Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Glover. Passed unanimously. The permit extends B-1 zone regulations into R-1C zone. All six members voted in favor. Conditions require development in accordance with the submitted site plan and obtaining necessary permits prior to occupancy. **C-2012-6: Conditional Use Permit for Historic House Museum at 2650 Bowman Mill Road** [timestamp: 00:43:24] Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded. Passed unanimously. All six members voted in favor. Conditions require compliance with the submitted application and site plan, adherence to Board of Architectural Review requirements, and compliance with the Conservation Easement and Purchase of Development Rights program restrictions. **C-2012-5: Conditional Use Permit for Church with Accessory Parking at 3021 Tates Creek Road** [timestamp: 01:28:47] Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded. Passed unanimously. All six members voted in favor. Conditions include no dumpster service requirement, implementation of a one-way traffic system with designated entrance and exit, and installation of a drainage system to direct stormwater appropriately. **V-2012-9: Variances for Driveway Width at 373 Preston Ave** [timestamp: 01:43:17] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded. Passed unanimously. The variance increases driveway width from 10 feet to 17 feet. All six members voted in favor. Conditions include obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, installing decorative areas or grass strips in the driveway, and installing a drainage system to direct stormwater appropriately. **V-2012-8: Variances for Front Yard Setback at 1203 Fincastle Road** [timestamp: 02:06:12] Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded. Postponed unanimously. The variance would reduce front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet. ## Public Comment Four speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Opposition to New Hope IPC Conditional Use Permit** Clarissa Spahn, representing the Glendover Neighborhood Association, requested a postponement of the New Hope IPC conditional use permit decision [timestamp: 00:01:40]. Spahn cited insufficient time to review the proposal and lack of adequate notification to the neighborhood. She raised concerns about traffic impacts, solid waste disposal, and stormwater runoff associated with the development. Joseph Martin-Olich also opposed the New Hope IPC church development [timestamp: 00:45:35]. He expressed concerns about increased traffic congestion and potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, specifically noting the intersection of Rebecca and Tates Creek Road as an area of concern. **Opposition to Village Green Builders Driveway Variance** William Jefferson, a neighboring property owner, opposed the Village Green Builders driveway variance [timestamp: 01:29:50]. Jefferson raised concerns about increased stormwater runoff from the wider driveway and potential flooding of his basement, citing the low elevation of his property as a contributing factor to his concerns. **Support for Thoroughbred Homes Variance** William Wood spoke in support of the Thoroughbred Homes variance [timestamp: 01:44:25]. Wood presented a revised design intended to address neighborhood concerns. He emphasized the importance of preserving green space and the historic character of the area, and explained that the design improvements were necessary without altering the front setback of the property. ## Contested Items The February 24, 2012 meeting included three items that generated significant disagreement among board members, staff, and the public. **Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation Conditional Use Permit** A heated discussion arose over the conditions attached to the conditional use permit for the Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation. The central dispute concerned whether the conditional use permit should be tied to the entire 150-acre conservation easement. A key concern involved liability—specifically, the applicant's potential exposure to liability for actions occurring on leased land. Legal counsel and staff worked to revise the permit conditions to strike a balance: protecting the applicant from undue liability while ensuring the project maintained compliance with applicable requirements. **New Hope IPC Conditional Use Permit** Community opposition shaped the discussion of the New Hope IPC conditional use permit. Neighbors raised multiple concerns about the project, including traffic impacts, drainage issues, and inadequate notification of affected parties. These objections prompted a prolonged discussion that extended beyond staff recommendations. Despite staff recommending approval, the board added new conditions to the permit in response to the community concerns raised during the meeting. **Thoroughbred Homes Variance Request** A procedural dispute delayed resolution of the Thoroughbred Homes variance request. The disagreement centered on whether the applicant should have engaged the Ashland Park Historical Society at an earlier stage in the process. This exchange became heated enough that the board postponed the case. Notably, the property in question was not located within a historic district, which added to the contention over whether such engagement was necessary or appropriate. ## Justin Weekley - Variance to reduce rear setback for carport **Case Number:** V-2012-7 **Property:** 3974 Weber Way **Request:** The Board considered a variance request to reduce the rear setback requirement from 16.6 feet to 6 inches for a carport. **Outcome:** The Board approved the variance with conditions related to stormwater management and construction compliance. [timestamp: 00:09:56] **Conditions of Approval:** - Stormwater management requirements must be met - Construction must comply with applicable standards ## Jehovah's Witnesses Trustees - Conditional use to expand church **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use permit application for the Jehovah's Witnesses Trustees to expand their church facility located at 400 Kingston Road. [timestamp: 00:11:05] **Key Speaker** Cathy Kono presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the church expansion. The approval included conditions related to construction requirements and permit compliance that the applicant must satisfy. ## Brenda Tollett - Conditional use for indoor recreational facility [timestamp: 00:12:08] The Board considered a conditional use permit application from Brenda Tollett for an indoor volleyball facility located at 741 Miles Point Way. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit. The approval included conditions requiring permits and imposing limitations on food service operations at the facility. ## Steve Snowden - Conditional use to extend B-1 zone into R-1C [timestamp: 00:15:27] The Board considered a conditional use permit application from Steve Snowden to extend B-1 zoning into an R-1C zone to allow for a bakery and retail sales operation at two locations: 1616 Liberty Road and 720 Henry Clay Boulevard. The Board approved the conditional use permit with conditions requiring compliance with the site plan and acquisition of all necessary permits before operation could commence. ## Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation - Conditional use for historic house museum **Item Identifier:** C-2012-6 The Board considered a conditional use permit application from the Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation for a historic house museum at 2650 Bowman Mill Road [timestamp: 00:16:31]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Richard Murphy, Billy Van Pelt, and Rochelle Boland. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit. The approval included revised conditions that addressed two specific areas: compliance with conservation easement requirements and site-specific use parameters for the historic house museum operation. ## New Hope IPC, Inc. - Conditional use for church with accessory parking The Board considered a conditional use permit application for New Hope IPC, Inc. to operate a church with accessory parking at 3021 Tates Creek Road. [timestamp: 00:43:54] **Key Speakers and Presentations** Dick Murphy, Clarissa Spahn, and Joseph Martin-Olich participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Issues Addressed** During the hearing, the Board addressed several concerns related to the proposed church use: - Traffic impacts and management - Drainage considerations - Notification requirements and procedures **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit. As part of the approval process, new conditions were added to the permit during the hearing to address the concerns raised by Board members and ensure appropriate safeguards for the site and surrounding area. ## Village Green Builders - Variance to increase driveway width **Identifier:** V-2012-9 The Board considered a variance request from Village Green Builders to increase driveway width from 10 to 17 feet at 373 Preston Ave. [timestamp: 01:29:19] **Key Speakers:** - Drew Bresker - William Jefferson **Outcome:** The Board approved the variance with conditions for landscaping and stormwater management. ## Thoroughbred Homes, LLC - Variance to reduce front yard setback **Identifier:** V-2012-8 The Board considered a variance request from Thoroughbred Homes, LLC to reduce the front yard setback at 1203 Fincastle Road. [timestamp: 01:44:25] William Wood presented on this matter. The Board determined that further discussion and coordination were necessary before proceeding with a decision on the variance request. Specifically, the Board sought additional engagement with the Ashland Park Historical Society and requested refinement of the proposed design. **Outcome:** The Board postponed the variance request to allow time for these discussions and design modifications to be completed. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from November 18, 2011 - **V-2012-7** — passed (0-0): Variances to reduce rear setback from 16.6 feet to 6 inches for a carport at 3974 Weber Way - **C-2012-2** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit to expand church structure, increase parking, and add sidewalks at 400 Kingston Road - **C-2012-3** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility at 741 Miles Point Way - **C-2012-4** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit to extend B-1 zone regulations into R-1C zone for a bakery at 1616 Liberty Road & 720 Henry Clay Boulevard - **C-2012-6** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit to establish a historic house museum at 2650 Bowman Mill Road - **C-2012-5** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit to establish a church with accessory parking at 3021 Tates Creek Road - **V-2012-9** — passed (0-0): Variances to increase driveway width from 10 feet to 17 feet at 373 Preston Ave - **V-2012-8** — postponed (0-0): Variances to reduce front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet at 1203 Fincastle Road --- ## Full transcript If I, if you would please stand, raise your right hand please. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. And I would ask that you probably turn, if you would, turn off all of your cell phones, put them on silent. If you have to make a call, if you feel free to step outside there and please do that so we don't disturb those who are speaking. and those who are going to speak. The first thing we do here on the agenda is we have minutes from November the 18th. The board members, we've had these in our packets for a week. Unless you have questions about them, we would ask for these minutes to be approved. So moved. We have a motion to approve the minutes of November the 18th. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed. Minutes approved. We'll sound the agenda relative to postponements first. Are there any postponements? If there are postponements, please come forward. Tell us who you are and what case it is. Tell us who you are, please. My name is Clarissa Spahn. I live at 1909 Velofonte Drive. I'm also the treasurer of the newly formed Glendover Neighborhood Association. I'm requesting a postponement of C-2012-5, New Hope IPC, because the neighborhood has not had adequate time to review this proposal. We are a newly established neighborhood association and had not yet been added to the GIS map at the time this request was made. We did not receive notification of this proposal. Tell me what case that is again, please. That is the New Hope 2012-5. I read that the staff had also requested a proposal, and I want to add to that. We are requesting a postponement so that we can evaluate the effects of this proposal, but for the benefit of the applicants, I want to state our concerns. And they have to do with what the staff has recommended. And the first one is that the staff had concerns regarding solid waste disposal, and our concerns with that are the positioning of the dumpsters on the lot and the need to screen the adjacent homes from the problems associated with extremely large garbage cans, the buffering of adjacent properties from any other site noise nuisances, and an examination of the potential for stormwater runoff problems that might be caused by the addition and changes to the driveways and parking spaces that were recommended by the staff. The second, the staff recommendation, concerned Tate's Creek Road traffic, and our concern also concerns traffic, except that's the Sunday morning traffic situation at the corner of Rebecca and Tate's Creek intersection. We're concerned it will be worsened and should be considered by the city. When completed, the Greek Orthodox Church, which is at the corner, will have driveway access onto Rebecca Road, approximately 100 feet from this intersection. Approval for this was given without a traffic study and over the safety concerns voiced by neighbors who actually live near and observe this intersection. We continue to feel that the creation of this driveway will cause a serious traffic hazard, and we're concerned that additional traffic generated by New Hope could make the situation even more dangerous for churchgoers and for neighbors who are trying to exit their street. We're asking that traffic engineering add Rebecca Road to their analysis of New Hope's traffic, and we're asking that their analysis include the data that they collected in August 2011 and combine that with their traffic projections of the Greek Orthodox Church. Let me understand what you're doing. The staff has recommended postponement. So were you here as a representative of New Hope? No, no. You're here as an individual that is challenging the request. No, I think their proposal is right on, and when I read their proposal, I became concerned because some of the changes they're recommending could also affect the backdoor neighbors, and I felt like a lot of their proposals were concerned about screening Tate's Creek from this and did not address screening the backdoor neighbors. And so, you know, if they decide that the dumpster should go on the back of the lot to keep it from Tate's Creek Road, that's going to have a serious impact on the backdoor neighbors, as well as they also recommended driveway changes and parking lot changes, and I don't know if that's been evaluated, you know, the concerns of run over the water. Well, let us hear from New Hope, if they're here, their representative, to see if they are in favor of the postponement or if they want this case continued. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent New Hope IPC, which is an independent Presbyterian church, and a number of our members are with us today. We'd like to go forward, and I just want to tell you why. We're number one. We're a small church, but we have— So you're saying you want to go forward with it? We would like to go forward today. That's all I want to know right now. We will bring that case back after the staff makes their comments relative to it, okay? Okay. Thank you. Any other cases here that are to be postponed? Mr. Chairman, if there are none from the office, the staff did receive written community, none from the office, none from the audience. The staff did receive two letters requesting withdrawing two applications on your agenda. The first one is on page four at the bottom of your agenda. A-2011-76 for David Bennett and Lexington Green. We've received a letter withdrawing that application, and it can be removed from your docket today. Then we don't need to take any action on that as a board other than the fact that it's been withdrawn. Fine. And the second one is on page 5, item 2, A-2011-80, Crestwood Christian Church. We received an email indicating that they would like to withdraw this application. All right. Granted. Thank you. No other cases relative to being postponed or withdrawn. If not, we're going to sound the cases. Those cases who we sound that have opposition, those cases will be moved to the end of the agenda. The ones that do not, we will take those cases first as they fall, please. Number one is V2012-7, Justin Weakley. Is Justin Weakley here? Is there anyone here in opposition to Justin Weakley appeal? Anyone? Thank you. We'll get to you shortly, sir. V2012-9, Village Green Builders. Is there anyone here in opposition to Village Green Builders? We have one in opposition, so that case has to move closer to the end. We have Thoroughbred Homes. Anyone here for Thoroughbred Homes, which is V212? Yes, sir. 2-0-1-2. We have anyone in opposition. The staff has recommended disapproval. Is there anyone here in opposition? So this case has to be moved toward the end as well. V-2-0-12-2, Jehovah Witness Trustees. Is there anyone here in opposition to Jehovah Witness Trustees? All right, we'll take that case as it comes. Case C-2012-3, Brenda Tollett, is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case? Thank you. Case 2012-4, Steve Snowden, Steve Snowden, is there anyone here in opposition? to Steve Snowden case. Thank you. Case 2, C2012-6, Kentucky Admissions Preservations Foundation, Inc. Kentucky Mansions, excuse me, Preservations Foundations, Inc. Anyone here? Staff? Anyone in opposition? Anyone here in opposition to this case? Good. And we'll sound these cases as they have been called, and we'll start off with Justin Weakley. Come forward, young man, and tell us who you are. I'm Justin Weekly, case V212-7. The staff, Mr. Weekly, has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you read and do you understand those conditions? Yes, sir, I do. Do you agree to those conditions? Yes, sir, I do. Will you follow those conditions? Yes, sir, I will. Any questions from staff? Any questions from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that V-2012-7 Justin Weekly appeals for a variance to reduce the required rear setback from 16.6 feet to 6 inches in order to construct a carport in a two-family residential zone and properly located at 3974 Weber Way 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 carries, sir. Do I have a few? The next case is C2012-2, Jehovah Witness Trustees. Tell us who you are, please. My name is Kathy Kona. I'm representing the Jehovah's Witness Trustees. Kathy? Yes. The staff has recommended approval following two reasons and also giving two conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, sir. Do you understand them? Yes, sir. Are you willing to abide by them? Yes, sir. Staff, any questions? Board, any questions? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2012-2 Jehovah's Witnesses Trustees' appeal for a conditional use permit to expand an existing structure, increase parking, and add sidewalks in a single-family residence R-1B zone on property located at 400 Kingston Road. as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Case C2012-3, Brenda Tollett. My name is Brenda Tollett. Yes, Brenda. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. Do you understand? Yes, I do. Are you willing to abide by those conditions? Yes, I will. Any questions from staff? Any questions from the board or comments? If you don't have any questions or comments from the board, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2012-3 Brenda Tallitz appeal for conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility and light and industrial zone on property located at 741 Miles Point Way, Council District 12, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Good luck to you. Thank you. KC2012-4, Steve Snowden. Thank you. just has a general concern about paving on liberty road but does not mention anything negative against the application today i would be having to pass those to the board as you do with liberty road do we i don't think so yes for this property faces liberty right faces it does face liberty road but the staff is not recommending new paving for the for what they are proposing to do uh staff i mean board is there you want to see the letter all right we don't have we don't have Do you have any questions or concerns? I repaved the entire parking lot. Are there questions from the board? We'll give you a minute to read those. Thank you. Thank you. Are we ready? We don't have any questions, concerns. I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2012-4 Steve Snowden's appeal for a conditional use permit to extend the regulations of the neighborhood business B-1 zone up to 50 feet into the adjoining single-family residential R-1C zone in order to allow a bakery and retail sale of bakery goods on property located at 1616 Liberty Road and 720 Henry K. Plovard be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Thank you. The next case is C2012-6, Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation, Inc. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation, Inc., which is the nonprofit organization which operates the Mary Todd Lincoln House here in Lexington and which is also going to be owning and operating the Helm Place Historic House Museum if you all vote to approve it today. I know the staff has recommended approval, and we have no objectors here. We do have one little item we want to talk to you about. There were some revised conditions of approval which we received yesterday, and I'm dealing with an organization that takes me a while to get this around and see if everybody's agreeable with things or not. And we do have a little quibble with condition number six. I just want to tell you who I've got with me today. I have a number of people from the foundation with me today. Dee Dee Moran, who is the president or chairman of the board, is here, along with Gwen Thompson, who is the executive director, and Jack Cunningham, who is an attorney also working with Kentucky Mansion's Preservation Foundation. We have a number of other volunteers and board members here who are here today with me, too. And this culminates a process we've been through. We've been through the Rural Land Management Board and gotten approval. We had to amend the text of the zoning ordinance to allow historic house museums in the AR zone. That text amendment went through the Planning Commission, got unanimous approval recommendation, went through the Urban County Council and got unanimous approval recommendation. And this is the next step we have. At some point, we also may need to go through the Board of Architecture review if we do any alterations of this building. We're in a historic district. We're on the National Register, and I think the PDR office has a conservation easement on this property. We applied for the historic house on 13 and a fraction acres of this property. The entire tract is about 150 acres, and we have most of the rest of it under a long-term lease with Mill Ridge Farm, which is right next door to us. So our application for a historic house museum was on the piece of property that the foundation will control. It's going to take a deed to the entire 150 acres, but that deed is subject to a lease which has 18 more years to run that Mr. and Mrs. Murphy, who owned the property, entered into with Mill Ridge Farm next door. They used it as part of their horse farm operation. And the quibble we have is that on six, we understand the PDR offices' ability to enforce their conservation easement on the 150-acre farm. But when you make it a condition of approval for you all, that means you can enforce it as a part of the zoning process as well. and the condition number six has some proposed language added, and that says that all social activities and events conducted at this historic house museum, and what was added is, and or on the 150.98-acre farm must comply with any applicable easements and or restrictions that are in place for Helm Place under the purchase of development rights program, deed of conservation easement. And as I said, we only applied for 13 acres, so we really think it's the authority of this board to act on conditions only applies to the 13 acres which we have applied to you to operate as a historic house museum. And the issue, though, is also what we've thought of as this way, is if Mill Ridge Farm should violate the deed of conservation easement on the portion of the property that we own but are leasing to them, and this condition remains as it is, it might be possible to revoke our permission to operate a historic house museum on our property due to someone else's violation of the deed of conservation easement. That's the concern we have on this one. And I understand your point, so I would like to hear from the staff relative to this also. Mr. Chairman, we made these revisions after talking with Mr. Van Pelt, who's with the office with the Purchase of Development Rights Program. Certainly the staff doesn't have any issue in making the change, but Mr. Van Pelt may wish to address the board as to whether or not that's significant in their mind making that change. Well, the reason why I'd ask you to respond on it, because it does seem to me like they are being charged with the entire acreage here rather than the 13 acres that they are leasing. And so can someone over there tell me? Oh, this is the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Billy Van Pelt. I'm the director of the Purchase of Development Rights Program. And as Mr. Murphy stated, our board worked very well with the Mansions Foundation and Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Murphy on the text amendment, and we've supported this effort from the beginning. The issue is that the entire farm is subject to the deed of conservation easement. And the Mansions Foundation will have deed to the entire farm. And the 13 acres no longer exist because it is one conservation easement. It's not a 13-acre parcel and the balance of the farm. It's one farm that the Mansions Foundation will control. And we need this language in here because any social activities or events that occur anywhere on the 150.98 acres, if it's on the 13 acres or off of that, is subject to the deed of conservation easement. And so we can't separate out 13 acres out of a conservation easement that is on the entire farm. And the museum will get the deed to the entire farm. And I understand that there's a long-term lease, but leases in for whatever reason, surrounding properties can be sold, and the conservation easement is going to stay. I think their concern is not so much the lease. is the fact that what happens if someone on another area of the farm violates this particular, is in violation here, and they are penalized for it as well. I think that's what they're concerned about. Well, ultimately, if there's a violation of the conservation easement, whether it relates to the historic house, museum, or not, that will be an issue that we have to deal with at that time. I think they're trying to avoid. I think this is from a legal standpoint. I wouldn't blame them. Maybe our board members up here might have a comment on that. But I think they've got a pretty valid point that if you're only leasing a certain point, and I understand your point as well as far as the 150.98 acres all fall under the same deed of conservation easement. But the farm has leased out 13 acres of that to another entity. and unless you have language here that is going to protect them if they don't violate any of this, it does seem to me like they are in jeopardy as well. I might be able to clarify, to your point, they're saying they're controlling or the conditional use application is only for 13 acres and that the balance of the farm is in an agricultural lease. Well, regardless of how the leases are done, the entire farm is subject to one conservation easement. I understand that. The bottom line is 13 acres doesn't exist anymore because there's a conservation easement on it. So you're telling me in essence they have the whole farm? They do. So my question is, suppose that there is a violation of the PDR deed. What's the remedy? Well, the first thing, it would have to come back before the Rural Land Management Board. And the Rural Land Management Board holds the conservation easement, and we enforce it. So that would be the first step in the process. I'm just not quite sure why the conditional use permit should depend on whether or not all of the property complies with it. I think the concern on Condition 6 is we don't want, I know that the conditional use permit has to do with the 13 acres, but we don't want these other types of activities happening on the rest of the farm. Well, right, but whether it's in there or not, they can't conduct activities that violate the purchase and development rate easement, right? That's right, and that's why the whole farm is under one easement. I'd like to ask a question. Ms. Bowen, I'd like to get some legal advice on this. Are we able to even separate the 13 acres if it's all legally the whole 151 acres part of the conservation easement? I think there are two ways we can look at this. I don't believe you have any authority with respect to any of the acreage that falls outside of the application for the conditional use permit. You've already referred to use in accordance with the development site plan that's been submitted. I think, number one, we could try to work out language that would specify that with respect to the conditions for this conditional use, within this acreage, this applicant must comply with any applicable restrictions of the deed of conservation easement. I think that's one thing we could do. I understand the concern. I don't think a revocation of the permit for this conditional use would be appropriate if on the back hundreds of yards away from this use somebody does something wrong. It's a violation. I don't think legally that could be taken as a basis to revoke this conditional use permit. So I do have that concern. I think that we could answer Mr. Van Pelt's concerns by saying this board has authority over this site plan and this proposed use, and within that area they are required to comply with the restrictions of the overlying easement, Because with respect to the rest of the farm, and in fact even with respect to this area, obviously they have a remedy to bring them back before the board, find they're in violation. This is a legal document, in essence a contract that covers the entire acres. That's absolutely accurate. But I don't think this board has any authority over anything but the property which is the subject of this application. so I mean if Mr. Murphy thinks that that would satisfy his clients concerns I think that's all he wanted was a specification that their operation of this house museum must comply within its perimeters to the same restrictions of this deed of conservation easement but he doesn't want them subject to somebody over here did something wrong that they had no control and no responsibility for And you can even put in the condition, all activities connected with this application must take place strictly upon the area defined in the site plan. So if they did have activities outside of that area, then that could be a basis for revocation because that's a violation of their conditional use permit. Mr. Chair, if I could, sir. I guess there's two questions the first of which I'm not sure how you can have a site plan and designate something separating out 13 acres when it's one conservation easement on 151 acres that's the first thing the second thing is I think there are a lot of questions here the Rural Land Management Board they haven't seen this site plan And if we can't resolve this, I would respectfully request that we postpone this until after the Rural Land Management Board can evaluate this at their March 5th meeting. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The applicant, you all come forward, please. He has suggested that we postpone this until you all can get this language, I guess. and your position relative to where you are on the farm versus where they think you are on the entire farm cleared up. What's your feeling? Well, we want to go ahead today. I'm in agreement with what Ms. Boland told you. I think everything that she told you about revising the language of this. We are not here to ask you to give us permission to violate the deed of conservation on the rest of the property. It's just the fact that the Rural Land Management Board has its own enforcement mechanism for the conservation easement, which covers the 150 acres. We're not here to argue about that at all. our only concern is that since we don't we lease it out and we've we've applied for this portion and that's not unusual you will we only have to apply for the property that's being used as a conditional use as you all know that's not unusual on other applications that we not be caught where especially it talks about social activities and events and horse farms do occasionally have social events on their property and we don't want to that to somehow trigger a revocation of our permit to use this as a historic house museum if we have nothing at all to do with it. We're not here to threaten the authority of the Rural Land Management Board over this conservation easement. We're not here to say that they shouldn't take whatever action against whoever violates that. We're here only to ask for this conditional use for this particular parcel. And we're a nonprofit board. It's a small group. They are concerned about things. And we have an outstanding relation with Mill Rich. I've got an exhibit here which I haven't passed out, which if we went through a full hearing I would. I've got a letter from Mr. Headley Bell in which he expresses his unconditional support for what we're doing and tells you about the great relationship Mill Ridge has with us and the fact that they lease a big part of this land. I don't think what you all do doesn't have any impact on the conservation easement, and what the Rural Land Management Board does about the conservation easement doesn't have any impact on you all at all. We have to comply with a number of different organizations. We have to do, number one, whatever you put in your conditions to us. Number two, whatever the authority of the Rural Land Management Board has, they have their authority. And number three, we have the Board of Architecture Review, which also has authority of us, not to mention the fact that we're on the National Register and all sorts of other things that we have to prove for. It's just the problem when I have is when we start cross-referencing these conditions, and in other words, making, say, Board of Adjustment, we want you to enforce the Rural Land Management Board conditions. I don't think that's any more than we ought to have the Rural Land Management Board enforcing your all conditions on this. We know we've got to comply. I'm not sure that, and I hate to make this bigger than it is because it's really not that big an issue because they're going to be able to enforce their thing anyway. But we're just concerned about this issue, about the fact we, for 18 years, we're not going to have control over the rest of this property, and you're not giving us permission to operate a historic house museum on the rest of that property. It would be different if we were coming in today and we had no lease and we were asking you for permission to operate on all 150 acres. uh... but as you know when you if you own a house that you rent out and you rent it to your tenant you don't have authority to come in and tell them what to do on your property they have control of the property until their lease is up and it's the same thing here what i would was proposing was just deleting that language and or on the hundred fifty point nine eight acre farm that makes it clear that Our activities have to comply with that. We're not fighting over that. We're going to let our legal right something, and then we'll look at it here in just a second. Okay? Is there anyone else in this case that? Chair, I'll just say that, and end with, there is not a 13-acre parcel anymore, and I think that's the hitch here. a 13-acre parcel doesn't exist. Well, I think that will fall between the applicant and the rural land management group. I would have to say I think Mr. Murphy is correct. People will come in and apply for a portion of their property to be used for conditional use. In fact, as you're well aware, we often have one property that is split zoned, and they may not be able to have the use across that zoning line. But it doesn't make any difference that there are not two lots there. The site plan designates the area to be used for the conditional use, and this board has the right to restrict it to that area. It does not have to be divided off from the rest of the property to do that. So are you going to write me something over there, please? Thank you. While we're waiting, Mr. Van Pelt, would you come back to the podium? I've got a question for you. A lot of farms are leased, and the owners might entertain a PDR application to you, and if you accept it, you would be making a financial arrangement with the owner of the farm. But if it's under a long-term lease, this isn't the first time this has ever happened. How do you deal with a tenant that's not adhering to an arrangement you've made with the owner? Well, when the lease is made between the owner of the farm and the person that's leasing the farm, the person that's leasing the farm knows that it's subject to the conservation easement. I'm talking about a pre-existing lease. That's what this is. So that lesser is a, he has rights under his original lease before the deal you make with the owner. Well, we had the lease. It's my understanding that our conservation easement was prior to the lease with the adjoining farm. Well, then I think the concern that our board had when we reviewed this, and we've met with them several times, is using the farm for non-agricultural purposes, be it on this area in close proximity to the house or outside of that area around the house. And we worked with them on the text amendment. and we reached an agreement that certain things were complied with the terms of the conservation easement and some things didn't. But the underlying issue here is that the Mansions Foundation is going to have the deed to the entire farm. The entire farm is subject to the conservation easement. So if for whatever reason it's 18 years later or the lease goes away for whatever reason, then the Mansions Foundation has the ability to use this farm for farm experience visits from the public. It's not just contained in the house, and we talked about that. that issue with them, where people could come out and look at what a historic farm function like and agricultural learning experiences, and we support all of those. But our concern was that anything that's connected to the museum is done in a way that complies with the easement. What we don't want to happen is we don't want social activities or events that are not educational in nature happening. So whether it's on the 13 acres or off the 13 acres, we just want to be very clear that the whole thing is subject to this conservation easement. And I think if they have control of the whole farm and they get the deed to the whole farm, and the Mansions Foundation controls the whole farm and the whole farm is in a conservation easement, it seems to me that the conditional use permit is directly linked to the whole farm because there is no 13-acre parcel. But you do understand that we permit conditional uses on portions of property. A person can have a home occupation in half of their garage, and it's limited to that half of the garage. I just think this is a unique situation. Well, thank you. Okay. We'll be putting something up on the overhead for your consideration in just a moment as soon as he makes it a bit more legible than my scripting. Thank you. so Thank you. Okay, the two changes offered by Ms. Boland in the third line, there will be a period after Board of Architectural Review. It would then read, only the property shown on the site plan will be used for this conditional use, and all activities on the site must comply with the deed of conservation easement already in place under the purchase of development rights program. The other edit is to number six, which would read all social activities and events conducted at this historic house museum on the site plan must comply with any applicable easements and or restrictions that are in place. The rest is unchanged. Mr. Murphy, you want to come back up, please? Do you have any comments on this? We're in agreement with that? You're in agreement? Yes. And I would point out that if after the lease expires, if the foundation wants to expand its operation, they'll have to come back to you to revise the conditional use permit. Thank you. Staff, do you have any more concerns? Board, any comments? Not. We'll hear a motion on this case. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that item C-2012-6, Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation, Inc. Appeal for Conditional Use, permit to establish a historic house, museum, and agriculture, rural zone, also in a historic district overlay zone, property located at 2650 Bowman Mill Road, be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff, and noting the revisions to number six is prepared by legal counsel. That was number one and six. Number one and six. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. Next case is going to be C2012-5, New Hope IPC, Inc. New Hope? Okay. Mr. Chairman, the staff did revise its recommendation on New Hope. I think we've put this at your place on a white sheet titled Revised Staff Recommendation. Change to number one, finding. This is a future dumpster location at issue and is not currently recommended by the Division of Solid Waste that this applicant have dumpster service. Before we hear Mr. Murphy, we'll listen to the opposition. So the one in opposition, would you want to come back up, or if you said all you wanted to say? There were also three letters of opposition, which the staff has just circulated to the board. My name is Clarissa Spahn. I live at 1909 Belafonte Drive. I don't really have any more to add. I was here to represent my neighbors, and none of us really had enough time to analyze the situation. So I just want to record my objection to this based on that. So your previous comments have been recorded. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in opposition? Yes, sir. Come up and tell us who you are, please. My name is Joseph Martin-Olich. I live at 3013 Shirley Court. I'm in opposition to this use permit simply because I live approximately about 300 yards from the site. I'm just concerned about traffic, parking, and just the congestion that occurs in that area. So primarily that's my main opposition for this. If there is any way that those two concerns that you have can be rectified, are you still in opposition to it? I still am concerned about it simply because most of the large churches and areas of worship are on the opposite side of Tate's Creek Road, and Tate's Creek Road actually works as sort of an insulating component for that. I think once the church is built on that one side, on the west side, I think it will only lead to further congestion. So I still have some opposition to that. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Mr. Chair. Yes. I'm not sure if we're in the midst of a full hearing on this or if we're still considering postponement, because if the opposition is requesting postponement and the staff is recommending postponement, I'm wondering if we shouldn't think about that a little bit. Is the issue before the board right now whether we're going to postpone or continue this case at this point, I believe, because there's been so much testimony given already? That's a good point. I gather the staff is still in their position relative to this being postponed, I gather. We have no opposition to a postponement. I've got a question for you, Mr. Sally. A couple of the letters that we just received said that the neighbors were not notified during the timetable that they were supposed to. We'll check the file for notice. The ordinary 400-foot notice was mailed. What they may be referring to is the neighborhood notice. I think as Ms. Spahn mentioned earlier, this is a new neighborhood that was not on the neighborhood map. And so the neighborhood notice, which is courtesy notice, was later than usual. It may have been that that they were referring to. I did not see the letters of opposition. So we don't put ourselves in any worse situation we're already in. We're not going to hear this until we decide whether this case is going to be postponed or not, sir. If you would, please. Or continued. Or continued. Okay. Thank you. May I tell you why we'd like to be heard today, not continue it? I'm not prepared to hear this. Help me over a legal or do we need to hear any more on either side of this until it's decided whether it's postponed or not? Well, I think when the issue before you is whether or not to postpone, On that restrictive issue, you should certainly allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to the request for postponement. Okay. You may respond, sir. Okay. On the postponement issue, we wanted to go forward because we feel we've satisfied the two reasons, taken care of the two reasons that they're recommended for postponement. We don't have to do a dumpster, and we've got a plan that meets the objections about traffic, which we can show you, which we'd like to show you. We have, I think the notice was proper. We did our notice that we're required. We have sent out letters to 25 adjoining property owners as is required, and I don't think any of them were returned to the staff. Our lease is expiring on the space we're renting on March 31st, and if you postpone it for a month, your meeting is on March 30th, and they can't possibly move out in a day. Now, if you postponed it, we'd have to go to the landlord and say, Mr. Landlord, we've told you we're moving out. We're not going to renew the lease for another year, but would you let us stay on for another month? And hopefully the landlord would, but he's not required to do that for us. Our folks are here today. What I'd like to do is maybe tell you what we've done to remedy those situations and what our situation is. And I've talked to my clients. If you then feel we need to postpone it, we won't oppose a postponement. But we wanted to tell you how we feel we've taken care of those issues up here. Staff, do you have any objections to that? And have you seen the issues that they're talking about? No, sir. To further answer Mr. Sumbo's question earlier, the 400-foot notice went to, it looks like 25 properties and 23 letters were sent, 23 owners, and none have been returned. Thank you. So it's my understanding, the Glendover Neighborhood Association is a newly formed association, and you did not receive notice. Right. I understand from Mr. Salih that that's a courtesy notification. I didn't realize that. It didn't feel that being on the list that normally you... Oh, I'm sorry. My understanding is that that's primarily a courtesy notification. I did not realize that it was a courtesy notification. Part of becoming a neighborhood association was because a lot of these things were happening and we weren't being informed, like Greek Orthodox Church, for example, and that's why we formed a neighborhood association. I was informed by a neighbor on Rebecca, So we actually got a formal notification after we contacted Mr. Salee that we hadn't gotten notified. So that was, I don't know if it was Thursday or Friday of last week, but we just haven't had time to meet and talk about it with the neighbors that live on Windermere or the neighbors that live on Rebecca that are actually outside of that 400 feet. They're very big lots, so there's not a lot of people who are contacted. So that's part of the problem in our neighborhood. But you feel you'll be impacted by this? Absolutely, I do. Unfortunately, I mean, I think, you know, I feel like the size of the church right now, what they're requesting is, you know, that's fine, but what we found in the neighborhood is they just don't stay small. And, you know, I'd love to trust that it would, but unfortunately we can't. And we aren't, you know, we really don't have the traffic calming methods or traffic enforcement methods to deal with that, a traffic that could result from this. And then, like I said, we don't understand what kind of drainage problems could occur, water runoff problems could occur to the back lots. I don't know that property, so I don't know if it's a downhill slope. I really don't know, so that's the concern. The neighborhood notices that were sent, Shadeland and Southern Heights on February 8th and then Glendover on February 16th. Now the question is now is whether or not this board is going to grant the hearing since the staff has recommended postponement. My feeling is that we've got some unanswered questions here, and I think we've got traffic issues that have not been really addressed. We've got unknowns about the dumpsters. And so I'm in favor of postponement. And I'd have to say I agree with that. It might be an inconvenience to this church if they find themselves without a place for a month because their lease is expiring, but that also might be solved easily with the landlord. And these issues are too important to not hear fully. Any other comments about this? Well, I think the only issues that I've heard about are the adequacy of the notification. That's one of them, right? And the other is the provisions for collecting trash. And the applicant says that he has explanations for both of those. Are there any other? Have I missed any? internal circulation on the site we've revised our circulation to do what the staff asked us to we've checked with solid waste we don't have to use dumpsters at all we met all notification requirements i heard i heard a week and a half ago that people had not gotten a formal letter of notification but nevertheless knew about the hearing So they got a letter of notification to the New Neighborhood Association, and I understand they didn't get the letter, but I don't want the concern over the fact that they knew it, override the fact that they knew about it, even though they didn't get a letter addressed to them particularly. They already knew, notified the staff that they needed to get a letter, then got the letter, and I know the staff had provided my name and contact information to neighbors, telling them they could contact me if they had any questions. We had no contact about that. So, you know, like I said, we'd just like to... Mr. Murphy, I'm going to grant you the opportunity to show calls why this case should be continued. I mean, not continued, but heard. And if, in the opinion, the board feels that there's not enough evidence up here for us to approve this case, then we will ask for the postponement. Okay. That's certainly agreeable to us, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. If I may, I've got some exhibits I wanted to pass around to you, and I'll give that to our neighborhood representatives as well here. One, two, three. I appreciate this opportunity. I think it's important that misinformation not go out to the neighborhood in the meantime, no matter what you all do today. As I said, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent New Hope IPC, Incorporated. And I have a number of people from New Hope IPC, and that stands for Independent Presbyterian Church, are here with me today. Rachel Brooks is the pastor, if you want to sort of stand up briefly. Ed Clark is the president. And Bennett Clark is here as well as a member. And Jim Black is our engineer of J.E. Black PLLC. chas height is a planner who's worked with us and we may have some other people here on that before you get started you know we have one more person that was here in opposition so do you want to go ahead with your case prior to or do you want to hear his opposition let me present my case just so we can get the facts out to everybody so everybody knows what we're asking for all right on that if that's all right with you all um as i said we're we're asking for a conditional use permit to utilize the existing house as a church at 3021 Tates Creek Road. And as I said, we're going to be using the existing building. We're not going to be tearing it down. We want to have about 40 seats in the sanctuary, and this is an extremely low-impact development. As the staff said in their report, as I said, we're keeping the house. There's a circular drive in front, which we're keeping. We're adding minimal paving because we're adding our parking spaces along the circular drive in the front. The site, and if you could put the site plan up there on the chart there, it's over an acre in size, 1.1 acres. And this is our revised plan. We've taken to heart the comments that the staff had made on this. On our previous plan, here's Tates Creek Road right here. We have access only on Tates Creek. We do not have a side street with us. We cannot and do not want to access Rebecca Drive or any side street, unlike what the Greek church did when they were before you before. The parking previously was on the bottom part of the circle. The traffic division, I think, and planning staff thought it would be better to have it on the north side of the circle. That's over here. You see we have a driveway. We have an entrance. Staff has suggested a one-way system, which we've agreed to. This downtown is over up to the right on this, and we will have an entrance only at the existing curb cut coming around the circle and an exit only at the bottom location on Tates Creek Road. When you come in here, you have the ability to come into a two-car garage, which exists. The staff has suggested that we put some additional paving here so that coming out here you can make a right turn easily to go back on the circle out here so you're not tempted to go back out at the same place you came in. And so we've done that, provided a one-way system around there to come out there. As I said, this is a large house. It's got 3,300 square feet. On the first floor, it's got a half basement of about 1,700 square feet. So all in all, about 5,000 square feet. With a church with an attendance of about 40, it's well-suited for what they're doing with worship space, Sunday school rooms, and office space. We show ten spaces along the circle in here and two in the garage, which is more than what is required. When they came in to talk to me, I was concerned because I assumed they were going to be tearing down the house. And I was very happy when they told me they were going to be keeping the house because that will preserve the architectural pattern on this portion of Tate's Creek Road. As you know, on the Greek church up there, they're going to be taken down a house. We're not doing that. We'll have the same pattern we have. The second thing I asked them was, what happens if you're going to grow? What are you going to do here if you grow? They said, well, we thought about that. There's a number of options if we grow. Obviously, like most churches, they could have a second service. But they said other options are we could just split. We can split off and form another congregation. Or another option, which they're doing because they're preserving the house, is if we get bigger, we can sell this house and move someplace else because we are preserving the structure there, so it could be sold as a house again if we move out. So again, this church doesn't aspire to be a megachurch. It's keeping the house, and it's about as low-impact as a development as I think we can have. As the dumpster discussion came up and the Division of Solid Waste has informed us We will not need a dumpster that they want to. They prefer to keep serving us as they are with the Herbies out of the street. The church right now, I asked them how much trash they generate. Rachel Brooks, the pastor, told me that usually in an average week, their entire trash, it fits in a 13-gallon kitchen trash bag. She said that if it's raining, she doesn't even take the dumpster at the place they're at now in corporate centers. she takes it home and puts it in her herbie. On a heavy, heavy week, they may have three 13-gallon trash bags of trash that they have there, and it can easily fit in a herbie. They believe in conservation. They don't use disposable cups and that sort of thing. They use ceramic cups because they don't want to add to the trash flow on the earth. As I said, we've revised the plan. We've taken the traffic pattern that the staff proposed and made it one way out there. We are across the street from Emanuel Baptist Church, just as the Greek church was. They're the largest church in town. We have staggered hours with them. Emanuel has worship services Sunday mornings at 9 a.m., 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m. on Sunday. Our services, our Sunday school is at 10 a.m. and worship is 11 a.m. And Rachel tells me that most members don't even leave until 1 o'clock because they stay around visiting afterwards. So none of those coincide with the hours over at Emanuel on the other side of the street. We understand they're the big guy on the block there, and we need to work around them. We will not have a daycare. We are not asking you for approval for a daycare. or a school on this and the uh i wanted to i've got in my exhibit on page the second page after the map i've got a little comparison chart with the greek orthodox church and this was approved about a year and a half ago on tates creek road and i i know some people in the neighborhood are still concerned about that but i think you did the right thing in approving it by by making this this comparison chart, I don't mean to criticize the Greek church at all. I think you made the right decision because that's a very good location for that church. But one statement was made at that hearing by one of the staff members that the Greek church was the smallest church construction project he'd ever seen, the smallest project he'd ever seen. I wanted to compare us to that so you know where we're coming from. If you look at the second line, I've got our addresses. We actually take two lots. That was historically two lots where we're on. The owner merged them into one and built a big house on it. The Greek church has 1.3 acres. We have 1.1 acres. Next line I said, are they removing a house? The Greek church is yes, we are not. The size of the building, the Greek church from the minutes I got, was 19,450 square feet. That is, even if you count our basement, that's almost four times the size of what we have, 3.9 times the size. If you don't count our basement, it's almost six times larger than our size in this building. They're going to have two buildings. We're going to have one. They have 150 seats. We have 40 seats, about three and a half times of what we have. They have four and a half times as much parking, 54 spaces versus 12 for us. they needed a variance to park in the front yard we don't, we're not asking for that neither of them have any school or daycare both of those are observing the 125 foot setback line we have no access to a side street we put no traffic on Rebecca Drive whatsoever all our traffic goes on Tates Creek Road that's our only option that's where the traffic from the house goes right now on Tates Creek Road and both of us are across from Emanuel Baptist Church So I wanted to get that out there so you know where we're at. Many home remodeling projects have a bigger impact on the site than this does. All we're doing is adding enough pavement on the side of that driveway to allow ten additional spaces to be parallel parking on the driveway there. That's the only impact. We're very happy that the city is not going to require us to do a dumpster because we didn't want to put a dumpster up against the back property line, bothering our neighbors. We didn't want to put it out near Tate's Creek. We understand that if we ever do need a dumpster, we'd have to come back to you to get the location approved. As I said, we're staggering our time, and we have a one-way traffic system. So we feel very strongly that this is a very, very low-impact project. We think this is a very appropriate use, especially since we're keeping the house there. And we'd ask for your approval, but we understand your concerns about hearing from the neighbors. But we wanted to get the facts out there so that they are out for everybody to know on this, and we appreciate that very much. We have a gentleman here in opposition. If you want to come forward, please. and then after his staff I've got some questions for you after this if you don't mind please give us your name please name is Julian Beard 809 Glendover and 4th District Council person which covers this area that we're talking about Mr. Murphy has pointed out the difference between the two. My concern, and it really has no validity in this venue, but at the same time is my concern is what happens when the third one comes along? Are we going to be forced then to approve that one also because we've approved the two prior to that? We'll have churches strung along, small churches strung along all the way between Rebecca and Albany Road. the question of notification is a little different situation we do have a new neighborhood association it was missed for whatever reason some internal problems here at the city and it didn't get proper notification even if it's a courtesy notification if in fact it was valid to send a courtesy notification and they didn't get one. It's just the same as if it was a 400-foot notification, in my mind anyway. I have had so many numerous calls on this subject, not only people in the immediate area, but also along Tate's Creek Pike, about the concern about what happens next. And I think the comments that are made about growth are a concern. I don't know of a church yet that did not want to grow. And one example of that might be the fact that they have a Boy Scout troop. Now, I don't know how many children they have involved in their congregation, but that has typically been a way to grow your population. As the Boy Scouts go through their cycle, they have a contact if their families don't necessarily. Let me rephrase that. It is a way for a church to be able to grow with a built-in pipeline through the Boy Scouts. I, again, don't know how many children are involved in this 40-person congregation, but it couldn't be too many. but in the future it would it would have an opportunity to be exposed to this church I myself went through that process myself so I won't tell you how long ago but some period of time and it was a Presbyterian church also by the way my constituents strongly feel that they have not had a good opportunity to find out the full story of what is going on with this application. And as you might notice, the yards are extremely large. So from a dilution point of view, it's not the same as having 50-foot or 60-foot wide lots. These are 150-foot lots. Well, 190-foot lots, I'm sorry. which means that fewer people get an opportunity to get the 400-foot notifications. It just gets diluted by the size of the lots. So all of these things lead to the fact that a postponement, I would suggest maybe some of the neighbors in the Neighborhood Association sit down with the church members and have some type of dialogue. That's what happened with the Greek church. And see if we can't iron out the problems that the neighbors have with them wanting to do this. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me personally, but that's not my purview to try to understand why they would want to do this. and limit their growth so soon after. In fact, 40 people sounds like the tops as far as the parking is concerned. And if they have growth, they're not going to have any place to put the cars. But is it 12 places, I believe, if I might ask the staff? 12 parking places 12 park 12 parking places will hardly move 40 people depending upon the nature of the families themselves so you know they're they're hamstrung as far as far as growth is concerned as I see it and it makes no sense to me I'm told it's not a not a problem as far as they're concerned but I can't imagine them doing like the lexning club does and put you on a waiting list list and and as people die off you bring forward the next next applicant who may have been on the list for five years anyway those are my concerns from the council point of view and probably hopefully some logic point of view also. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, you have some comments you want to make regarding this particular petition, please. Well, first of all, I'd like to clarify on the question about the dumpster. The Division of Planning is never meant to say that this site needed a dumpster service over the recommendation of waste management. It was all about the growth of the church and when a future dumpster may be required for the subject property. It is proposed as a low-impact development, which has several benefits to the proposed site plan, but that also makes it difficult on getting a dumpster location on the subject property. That's where we were looking at that if a dumpster were required on the subject property in the future, this proposed site plan would probably not work for that type of a facility. As far as the internal circulation for the subject property, as the plan was submitted, the northern entrance, which is, can you point out, As the plan was originally submitted, that was both a write-in and write-out on Detach Creek Road. And in order to make this site function as that as a write-in, and with the southern entrance being an exit-out, that would have required some modifications to the internal circulation in order to make that work. So the staff was comfortable recommending postponement of the subject property, not to look for reasons to disapprove it, but to get it to an approval recommendation. If the board does, based off of the presentations that were given today, if the board would like to recommend approval of this plan, we were talking with the law department, and I believe that we could come up with some conditions for approval should you wish to go that direction today. Has everybody spoken that wants to speak regarding this particular case? again being new at this my question is what happens when they want to expand what options do the neighbors have is uh is that does that require another uh hearing to do that if they're going to expand on that piece of property it would be yes okay would it be through uh another conditional use your planning yes a board of adjustment okay thank you also mr chairman just like to put up on the overhead the notice requirements that brings us brings us down to the board do you have any comments before i call for motion please um i do have a question from traffic engineering this staff recommendation for postponement that was passed out said that they thought that the traffic configuration should be worked out before this moves forward are you happy with the outside diameter parking My biggest concern with this plan all along has been if the driveways are not properly configured, that people will tend to try to bike out onto Tate's Creek as they leave the property. And, of course, the one-way loop does help that situation. It's also a good idea, I think, putting the cars on the outside radius rather than the inside radius, which is the map that's shown a few minutes ago. However, that's the first time I've seen that map. It would have been better for us to be able to look at it ahead of time and kind of critique it possibly a little bit. The one thing that I see that does not work on this revised plan that you see now is they do have both just one entrance point and one exit point from the property. But that does not allow that driveway to work that goes back to the garage because basically you can get in but there's no way out. I had recommended putting in a turnaround area where they could flip through that loop to exit the property. So, in other words, this plan as is still concerns me because it's not fully functional. I'm not saying it can't be tweaked to do that, but as you indicated, it would have been a better thing to do that ahead of time rather than springing this on us today. The opposition also is worried about the increase in traffic on Tate's Creek Road. Now, I'm not a traffic engineer. It seems like this would be minuscule, but it's a question that ought to be answered. Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, I guess it's hard for me to see where, as far as traffic count-wise, this is going to make a big difference. I mean, look across the street and see the number of parking places that you have all along that corridor, not just directly across the street, but all along that corridor. There's multiple churches with huge parking lots. If you look at what another 10 or 11 parking spaces are going to do to the traffic count, I think it's obvious it's a very small percentage impact. Now, that's not to say that maybe the traffic impact on Tate's Creek is already bad on Sundays. You know, if all these churches are basically starting or stopping at about the same time, there's no doubt that Tate's Creek can look like a parking lot at times. So there is a point of saturation, I guess, is what I'm saying. But we're not hearing complaints about that until this project come up, very similar to the Greek Orthodox Church, as Mr. Murphy mentioned. What about people coming to church from towards town? They'll have to come down Tate Creek Road, pass the church, and then U-turn back to get into this entrance. So I guess there's some danger there, too. Sometimes a U-turn is not a bad movement if there's good sight distances. And some theories of access management do encourage more of these right-in, right-out type entrances rather than full entrances where people make that left turn into traffic. So there again, it's a concern to me because this is a residential property, and now it's starting to get to characteristics of a commercial property. And, of course, that's the reason some of the improvements that we're asking for, because this is going to see more volume than a typical residential property, which is how this was originally developed. So that is a concern, but then again, I think you have to take into account we're talking about 10 or 11 parking spaces. And without any on-street parking in the premises, there simply can't be any more vehicles on this property than what's allowed as far as parking places. My point is I just want it to be as functional as it can be, not trying to cost the applicant any additional money. But even 10 parking spaces, if they're not configured right, can present an unsafe manner. And like I said, my goal is, the way that works right now, those parallel parking places along that driveway, I'm concerned about particularly that very back place, them wanting to back out on the Tate's Creek. So one thought that I had is accept a drawing very similar to this, but wipe the three spaces out. There are parallel spaces along the driveway going to the garage. And I think they mentioned they needed 40 people, which I think that would require eight spaces. So I'm not trying to limit the parking. I'm just trying to limit the good parking, and that's just one of the options. The other option would be, like I said, make it to where they can flip around and use the loop to exit the property. Mr. Murphy, I have a question. Without a long dissertation back to me, if you would, please. I have a question. You heard his concern relative to the parking spaces. Can that be adjusted where you have a turnaround there? My other question would be, and I think you mentioned this earlier, and it probably went through one of my ears and out the other, the time span from the time your church starts versus the time the other churches starts on Tate Creek. Yeah. I've got the starting times written down here if I can just find them. I think I can find them again. Yeah, Emmanuel, across the street, they have three services on Sunday. Nine o'clock, it's 5.30, that doesn't really matter, we don't have, but two in the morning, 9 a.m., 10.30 a.m. Our Sunday school starts at 10 a.m. It's Sunday school for everybody. 11 a.m. is the worship service. And Rachel told me that most people stay around until 1 o'clock talking and visiting and that sort of thing. So we're staggered between Emmanuel's times. And I think the critical thing is leaving out there. It's not too hard to get in these places. It's harder leaving. Our folks leave between probably 12, 30, and 1 p.m., usually on a Sunday. Emanuel's service is at 1030, so it lasts about an hour, an hour and 15 minutes. They're leaving before our people are leaving as well. We had put a turn in here. It's not really real visible on this plan, but we had showed, see where this arrow is, that somebody can come out and make this right turn. Mr. Gelmar, I don't know if that was what you were referring to or not on there, but we did put that in there to make it so that it was. That's a general idea. I'm not so sure. That looks a little tight to me to work, but it just might take a little tweaking to make that radius to where a car can actually make that turn. And the members asked me to tell you, too, they only have 16 members in this church right now. We have tried to plan for growth by saying we wanted 40 seats. Thanks, Mark. But they only have 16 members. That was my next question to you. Do you have 40 members in the church every Sunday? That was my next question. Sixteen. So you have sixteen. Yeah. That's all I had, Mr. Murphy. Well, the other thing, a lot of the neighbors live on the neighborhood on the other side of Tate's Creek, the Lansdowne, Merrick, Turkey Foot, that sort of thing, and they would come up Mount Tabor, make a left turn naturally so they can make a right into this site. Thank you. Thank you. If we don't have any more questions from staff or any more questions from the board, I'm going to call for a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, first of all, ask the staff, you said that Ms. Bowen had produced some facts for approval. Can you post those up there? We have three proposed conditions for approval if you're inclined to approve it. Three additional ones? Will that make it five instead of two? You have three additionals. I had no problem with the findings for approval that were submitted for your consideration by Mr. Murphy. The staff and I have worked together to come up with some conditions for approval that you might want to review. Mr. Murphy can review and see if they look satisfactory. Now, Mr. Murphy's findings here, are they, what we are reading up there, which I can't see very well, so will someone, you know, and staff tell me what that is, what's it saying? Yes. Just a medium. There we go. Let's see if that might help a little bit. I was going to make it six. Are you ready? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. I certainly understand the neighborhood and the residence, and this is becoming a church alley here on Tate's Creek Road as we approve the Greek Orthodox Church. And as Mr. Gallimore had mentioned, churches dot the landscape up Tate's Creek. Obviously, comparing the two Greek Orthodox churches, the size and number of parking spaces available, and certainly the size of the building and so forth, and I think that's a big issue with me regarding retaining the home. I would like to go ahead and move item C-2012-5, New Hope IPC, IPC appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a church with accessory parking and single-family residence zone on property located at 3021 Tate's Creek Road be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? And adopting the findings by Mr. Murphy. Do I have a second? I have a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Two in opposition. Motion passes. The next case, you can turn the lights up if you don't mind, please. The next case is Village Green Builders. And we have one individual in opposition, and we would ask that individual in opposition if you'd come forward, please. and we're sorry that you had to stay this long, but sometimes that's the way it works, sir. Tell us, you give us your name. Yes, sir. My name is William Jefferson. My wife and I have owned the property next door to 373 that's applying for the application for about 28 years. And we really do applaud the owners of 373 for cleaning up and rebuilding a former distressed property over there. And our only concerns are with the drainage of the new property at 373. Drainage? Yes, sir. Since we've owned the property, we've always had some minor drainage problems due to the grade of the area and the fact that our house is one of the few in the area with a full finished basement. If the driveway is expanded and more concrete is poured, we're afraid it will add to the drainage problem by sealing off more area for water to be absorbed. Since our home is at a lower level than 373, the water will spill over into our own property. um therefore we're opposed to the construction of a wider driveway unless a proper drainage channel between the two homes is constructed okie doke thank you sir i do have some photographs if anyone would like to see this well get them over and let us look at them i'll put them up for you do you while you're doing that i will ask you a question, you can come back and address the answer, if you don't mind, please. We do understand your concern relative to your property and basement and drainage from water. Is there any way in your mind that this could be rectified where the water can be directed away from your property without creating a problem for you? Possibly curbing along the side of their driveway, but like I say, the way the downspouts are and everything, it's going to head over in that direction. They could possibly put some corrugated pipe or something that would drain it toward the rear of the property, and then the driveway could possibly be directed toward the street. Thank you, sir. If you all would put those pictures up and let us look at them, and then we will, before we bring the applicant up we will look at these pictures so we can get an idea of what we're looking at please let's um that's not a real car picture but it's all i can do right there to the left of 373 Yes, sir. And the other property is right next door to you to the right? To the right. And the water is going to come down from the left of his building to your point? Right, due to the slope or the lay of the land there. Is that land, is that walk there, is it sloping to him or is it sloping to you? It's sloping to me. But that was the best photograph I could get there or the old house on Google. Okay, that's the new house, the property. Just kind of showing the downspout on the garage. And when they add an extension to the driveway, it's three feet shy of doubling what normally was code. Okay, that's just another shot down the side of their property between the properties. Is that a low or is it a low-lying area in there? Our house kind of sits down from the road, basically. It's kind of in a bowl. And it drains toward the back from the front. And that is a shot at the rear of our property between the two houses. You can kind of see things are higher there. That's a fence going down through there? Yes, sir. And there again is a shot of the front yard. if I can get one in there, it's showing there's actually steps down from the sidewalk to our property right there. Okay. Do you have water running into your place right now? We've always had some minor drainage problems, but we were just afraid that if this is not taken care of, that it could exacerbate the problem. Is your house guttered good too? Sir? Your house guttered good too? Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And we will ask the applicant to come forward, please. Hello. Yes, sir. I'm the applicant. And tell us who you are, please. My name is Drew Bresker. I live here in Lexington, 1205 Passage Mountain Way. um the staff has recommended approval of this application along with two conditions have you read those conditions i have you understand those conditions i do do you also understand the concern that your neighbor has i do i i think i could add maybe a little bit to it okay if you want to hear a chance if you notice the pictures the uh the grade of the house actually It had not been fully established at the time when he took pictures. Actually, just yesterday we had some Bobcat work done, and it does make the drainage of the house flows from front to back. So the driveway itself, the sidewalk is taller than the mouth of the garage, so the water will be headed back towards the house. My house, actually the house I'm constructing. It goes going back towards your house? It goes from the street towards the house, as it does on their property as well. But when it goes down towards the front of the garage, the driveway will be sloped to spread it off both ways. And from the front of the house to the back of the house, my drainage plan from engineering shows that I need to make it drain from front to back. So that will continue to drain front to back as well as off the sides of my property, or of my block, I guess, is what I'm looking at. My house is on a crawl space, though, so it appears to sit up a lot higher, but as far as underneath, it's actually not that much high. You know what I'm saying? Anybody from water have any comments on this? Have you looked at this situation? We typically, for a new building permit like this, we do accept an erosion and sediment control plan that also has drainage on that. So, as Mr. Brester said, they are going to have to basically channel that water to the rear of the property. So I don't know that there will be an issue with it coming across the front end of the neighbor's property. If they channel the water to the rear underground, say, where does it go? I would say where it naturally went before they built this house. and it could be on adjacent property. There's no retention back in there, is there? Not that I'm aware of, no. If it looks to me like if it runs to the back, it could run back there across the street to the next house. Is that feasible? Potentially, yeah, sure. In-fill and redevelopment, yeah. It seems like we're just creating a problem, taking a problem away from your neighbor and sending it back to your other neighbor if you don't have someplace full of water to go. Well, I think in an in-fill and redevelopment area, the home builder is really limited on what they can do on that lot. Now, if it's in a new development area, of course, we're going to capture that water and take it somewhere else so that those existing drainage patterns won't create this situation. But infill and redevelopment is totally different. I mean, they're really constrained on all four sides by what they can do with it. And there's no way that he can dig a retention because if he digs a retention and the water is held there, it's going to go over there in the man's basement anyway. eventually. The more water goes in there, the more it's going to spread out and go where it has to go. I guess, can I add that, you know, code says, or the ordinance says, I can have it to be 10 foot wide, and I'm asking it to be 17. So we're talking about 7 foot by 20 foot is what, from the curb to the front. So I don't know if that 7 by 20 area is going to be really, whether it's going to impact the water or not. but you've got a bunch of other stuff that's going to be on top of that. And we've listened to your neighbor, and his concern is the drainage and also making sure that his basement is kept as dry as it possibly can. I don't know if it's completely dry or not. I kind of doubt it. and that the curbing along your driveway be directed in a way where he doesn't get that water. Do you understand what he's asking? I understand his request, except I can't do that because it will go in my garage. You know what I'm saying? So whether it goes over to his house or not is a little bit irrelevant, huh? I'm sorry? So whether it goes over to his house or not is irrelevant. No, I'm saying I can't make a curb because it will go into the garage. You know, it's got to come off either side. Or I guess I can make it go to one side rather than the other. Is that what you're saying? I have a suggestion. I have seen driveways that slope towards the garage door, and they put a drain right in front of the garage door. Yes. And you could drop the water into that. It could come around and attach to the water coming off your gutters and all of it in a pipe directed to the backyard. it'll do that naturally without a pipe but yeah that would absolutely solve the problem as well I have a question right now where's the water going right now but the same amount of water is going to fall on there next week as there's falling on there right now so where is the water going right now it's just naturally going to either side of the driveway part of it goes to my front yard Part of it goes to the side yard. I think it's eight feet between the side of my house and the property line. And then where does it go? It goes to the backyard. It goes to the backyard, okay. And that's what your plan is right now is to just focus it to the backyard. Yeah, I mean, that's what the erosion control plan deemed that I needed to do when I hermited it. So would you be in favor of doing what, putting that drain in there with that water? I wouldn't be against it, no. Sir? I would not be against it. Yeah, I'd be in favor of that. That'd be fine. Would that help you out, sir? Tremendously. Okay. Could we add a condition then? Add that as a condition? A condition that the water that comes off the left side of your house, gutters and the driveway need to be directed to the back. Not a problem? That sounds good. Did you get that, staff? We're working on it. All right. Do you have anything else you want to answer? Nope. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and it says that a drainage system will be installed in front of the garage to direct stormwater away from the neighboring property and into the appropriate storm sewer system or the rear yard to the approval of the Division of Engineering. Is that all right with you, young man? Yes, clear with you, sir? All right, thank you. Staff, if you have any other questions, if not, we will call for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve B2012-9 Village Green Builders' appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable width of a driveway for a two-car garage in the infill and redevelopment area from 10 feet to 17 feet in a two-family residential zone on property located at 373 Preston Avenue. based on the staff's recommendations and subject to their two original conditions and the third one that was added during this hearing. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Thank you all for staying with us. We have one more case, and that case is V2012-8. Mr. Chairman, there were four letters submitted for this property on Fincastle Road. I will go ahead and pass those out to the board. Yes, sir. You would, please. Sir, if you'd tell us who you are. Yes, William Wood on behalf of Thoroughbred Holmes. William Wood. Wood. Yes, sir. Mr. Wood, the staff has recommended disapproval, and they gave three reasons as to why, and you're here to prove your case. Yes, sir. I'm just here to kind of clear up some matters that some neighbors didn't have, like a full elevation to see what the house would look like. I have two exhibits for your review. Yes, sir. Is there something you can put up on the screen there? The address is 1203 Fincastle, located in Ashland Park. And that is an older community, a lot of green space in the community. The house 1203 is on the right. As you're looking at it, it has the small dormer in the center. We are requesting a setback from 30 feet to 22 feet in order to extend the second floor over the porch to increase living space of about 450 square feet. The dormer you see there currently is 3 1⁄2 feet above the porch, out towards the street. Now, a few reasons why we decided to try to go up towards the street instead of towards the back. The lot is a pie-shaped lot, nonconforming. On the right side of the property, you have two feet off of the house before you hit the property line. We are not enclosing the porch, and we are not reducing the front yard whatsoever. It will be re-landscaped. Our intention with the back part of the property is to keep the green space that's there. It's a larger area. And right off the back of the house is a huge tree that has a root system that's about the size of my legs that you can see from above ground. So it's an old tree. It's a healthy tree. And so we didn't want to take the tree out and keep as much green space in the back as we can. Now, as you look at the house on the first floor level, in the back left corner is a 9-foot by 13-foot stairwell. And that goes up to the second floor. And it's a wide staircase. It's a beautiful staircase. The house was built in 1927. To move that staircase in order to go to the back of the property would mean to redo the whole first floor level. And the flow of the first floor level with that staircase works properly now. So that is why we went up and out. Now, I have an elevation of what the home will look like. In consideration of this, we decided I got a call from one neighbor asking how the home was going to look. And her concern was Ashland Park is on a registry of a historic society, I think. It's not in the ND1, and it's not in the historical preservation zone. It's in neither one of those. However, we do see the fact that it's an older neighborhood. Most of the homes have that type dormer, and it's a bungalow-style home. There are several different types of homes. The one on the left is another style that is very common in the neighborhood. it you also have several two-story apartment buildings where the porch goes straight up and above both floors and this is all within a half block of this home also there is a four-car concrete garage so there's there's some inconsistencies and characterizations and that's why we did hear what she said when we went with this design in order to try to keep the characterization of the community the best we could the first floor will remain the porch will remain open and with the setback we will come out from the existing dormer another four and a half feet so we'll be back off the front of that porch two feet we keep the shank siding on top and the 21 inch overhangs on all the roof lines in order to keep the bundle look our goal in this project is to is to not only improve the property and bring the maintenance of the property up to date, but enhance the community as well. So we took what we heard, and this is our final design. We feel that it fits the neighborhood. I appreciate your time in this and ask for your approval. I have a question. Yes, sir. The staff, in making their findings here, the reasons for this, have an A, B, and C. And in B, I'm going to read it to you what it says. The applicant has not provided a justification indicating that there are any special circumstances that apply to this property that do not generally apply to others in the surrounding neighborhood. Although the shape of this lot is unusual compared to most lots in Fayette County, it is actually a typical lot in the Ashland Park neighborhood. I guess my question to you, what is the justification for making this change? I mean, how do you justify changing this structure to look differently than what's already over there? Well, number one, the home is well-aged. We have purchased a home in order to improve the home and resell the home. In order to do that, the upstairs living space is very minimal, as it sits with one dormer. But if you put the existing picture back up. You come up. I'll have a few left. It's too high. Let me work on that just a minute. The staircase, which is in the back, you come up to the second floor. You have one room there in the front. You have a bedroom in the back on the left and then a small room on the right. So what will happen is the right side will become a master bedroom. The left side will have a laundry room, a bathroom, and a bedroom. This is the staircase that is existing. Are you attempting to have more than one family in this dwelling? No, sir. It's single family. It's not going to be, for example, in this neighborhood you have a lot of this type of structure and this type of structure. Multi-families. This is single families. We're simply trying to improve the living space, increase the home's potential, and modernize it a bit and beautify the neighborhood. The landscaping will be different tonight and day. Are you leasing, selling, or renting? We will be selling. Now, this is an example within a half block of the four-car. It does not have a roof on it. That's a house behind it. Concrete garage. So you have some inconsistencies in the neighborhood that we recognize. That's why we want to improve. We don't want to enclose the porch or reduce the front yard. We want to keep the green space in the back. The tree is probably 60-plus years old, and it's right off the back of the house. So that would have to be removed, cut down, and would be a problem as far as, you know, trying to maintain the Ashland Park look of green space that it has. And you are aware that the Historical Preservation Society is totally against this, don't you? They were totally against it based on the fact that they didn't know how the home was going to look. Again, it is not in the ND1 or the HP zoning. So I understand their concerns, and that's why we went with this design. Have they seen this design? They have not seen the design. They have not called or requested the design. I had one conversation with one person. Don't you feel that it should have been appropriate for you to contact them and show the design to them? Well, I would expect that they would have come to the meeting to see what the design would be. In fact, I told Dixie Moore that I would like her to be here so I could show her the final design. We had talked about several designs with her, and based on our conversation on what she felt was important and the other neighbors felt important, that's how we came up with the design of the home. All right. Staff, thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Staff, you have recommended disapproval of this. Are there any additional comments that you feel you need to make regarding this proposal or any changes in your recommendation that you want to bring forth at this time? No, sir. The elevation, the staff specifically, never asked for an elevation of this property because we were looking at this request as it is a setback issue for the subject property. The, this neighborhood, the Ashland Park neighborhood, is characterized by its gently flowing roads, and you have several of these pie-shaped properties. This lot in particular is the central lot in five of those pie-shaped lots as it comes around Fincastle Road. The question is, there is a wonderful variety of housing types in this neighborhood, But even as you look at all of those different housing types, there is still a consistent front setback. And for those building types that do have the double-covered porches, you'll see that they are actually set back even with the building line. For properties such as this that have the one-story covered porch, Typically, your main front facade of the house is at the building line with a porch protrusion as allowed by the zoning ordinance. We felt that this request for a front yard variance to the 22 feet was not a justifiable variance and would be out of character with the existing subdivision. Let me ask you a question. how could they meet the requirement relative to what they're asking for? The staff believes that if additional living space is desired on this property, it would be more appropriate to put an addition to the rear of the subject property. It is a pie-shaped property, and their site plan indicates that there's a rear porch on the subject property, the tree would be located in about this location on the subject property. There we go. We believe that if additional living space is desired, that it would be more appropriate in the rear of the subject property. So the setback would not have to be readjusted? Certainly not the front setback if an addition were proposed in the rear. Being a pie-shaped lot, I do not know if an additional side yard variance may or may not be required, but that would just be based off of a proposal at that time. How does that hamper your design, sir? I will say at the time when we submitted, it was not required for the elevation, and the staff didn't have an idea on how we were going to do it. Yes, the Ashland Park, the setbacks there for an easement through the neighborhood, the dormers that are on it, basically this brings this up four and a half feet. The end of the porch is still where the end of the porch is. so the difference as far as coming closer to the street is up above. So the house still is sitting in the same place. So with this type of look, in order to make it conform to the neighborhood, I think the elevation has accomplished that with what we had. The downside to it going in the back, again, the tree would have to be removed. The side yard variances on the right side, again, were two feet off the property line. As the lot goes back, it gets narrow. One of the concerns the association had was that we would reduce the front yard and we would enclose the porch. That's why she was upset. When I explained to her that we were not enclosing the porch and we were keeping the front yard as is and going to relandscape it, she liked the idea of keeping the green space in the back as a large garden area and keeping that tree. The tree is a healthy tree. It's not diseased. And those trees are all through that neighborhood, and it's a big tree. And if you, above the, this is a back view also of the property. Try to give you a, the building on the right is the next door neighbor's property. The building straight in the back goes towards the end of this lot and is on our property. The fence is the left side of the property. So once it goes back, it goes back quickly. So we perceive this area as a huge green space area for garden, keeping it intact, keeping the tree, and trying to stay within the community realm. So you don't think you could go up the level you want to go up from the backside without creating a visual problem from the front side? A visual problem, but also with the staircase. The huge staircase is 9 foot wide and 13 foot deep. If you could show that picture of the stairs. That's the back left corner of the house. and you move that stairwell in order to make living space back. Then you create problems on the first floor to make it function properly. It's back in the back corner and it works properly with the house. And with this design, it works right into the second floor. We're creating a total of 450 square feet more, several rooms of the home. I would think in a neighborhood such as that, this would sell to a family, an established family with probably older children, and it would make a nice home for someone. Can I ask a question? Yes. As I understand it, the setback that applies to this property is 30 feet from the street. Is that right? That's correct. that's from the sidewalk back to the exterior wall of the house. Okay, and because of the way this house was built, the porch extends towards the front to make the setback from the porch to the sidewalk a total of 22 feet. The porch extends off that house at 10 feet. As you look at the house on the left side, from the sidewalk, you're at 35 feet on one corner and 32 and a half feet on the other corner. Corner of the porch or corner of the house? Corner of the house coming out to the sidewalk. So the setback makes the porch, the entire porch width is 10 feet. At the most, our dormer, our extra large dormer will extend 8 feet, if that. It may not get to 7 and a half feet. so that would put us back at three and a half feet further out than we are just on top. The porch is not moving out. The house is not moving towards the street at all. So you've got the structure in the same exact place, but you've got a larger dormer coming up four more feet forward. anything that we we do on the home our whole goal of course as a business your goal is profitability but also we we we did hear the community and why they wanted to look a certain way a bungalow a bungalow style home with what we had what we could do but we do want to improve the community and improve the house. It was built in 1927. The second story, as it sits, slows down, so that's all going to be fixed. It has a lot of maintenance problems. So we took it on as a pretty good project, and we don't see completing the project in six or nine months. This is going to be an over-a-year project because we tend to take, in all of our homes that we do this, we take our time to do it right. We don't have to rush. We have financial backing that helps us so we can take time to make it right for the community. Personally speaking, I don't have a problem with what your thinking is. My problem is that I think even though the historical society didn't come to you, I think you should have gone to them to show good faith in what you wanted to do with this particular piece of property. We deal with these cases like this year in and year out here, and the historical society carries an awful lot of clout relative to their neighborhood and the regions where these homes are historically clean. I just think that to do what you're wanting to do, in my estimation, would be somewhat of a detriment to that area. and I would, if I was sitting in your position right now, I would try to want to work something out rather than working with the staff and working with the neighborhood to see what you could do feasibly to meet your ends without doing what you're asking to do right now. I just don't see how you... May I request then, like I say, I assume that she would be here. I don't know if she's the president of the association or not. but she conveyed to me that she represented some neighbors. I do understand that. So that was bad for me to assume. I agree with that. I would like to request the time to postpone and meet with her and show her what the House will look like and see if we can get a middle ground. Staff, you have a problem with that? We would just ask that you continue rather than postpone. Yes, we'll do a continuance on it. I think this is best suited for everybody, and also I think it gives you an opportunity to introduce yourself to the structure of that historical area. It is very tentative, and it's very passionate about what they do. Sure. So I would ask, we would accept your recommendation for a continuance, and that you and the staff and engineers, building, and anyone else that you need to have in this thing get together relative to your ideas of this. I have nothing against what you're trying to do, more so because it's going to be single family, and I think it would be great, but I think it has to be accommodated, accountable for everybody over there in that area. Well, I think once she sees it, a picture's worth a thousand words. And we had talked at one time about some Bay Winner ideals and different things, and she was opposed to Bay Winners, and we heard that. So I think it will help both parties, and we can come to a minute. One other suggestion. Yes, sir. You need to read B and do something in writing or get someone to help you that knows what they're trying to tell you relative to your justification for that situation. Okay? I guess, sir. All right? I'd like to make a motion. Do we have a motion here for the continuance, please? Just one comment, though. I wouldn't want you to come back here filled with optimism. I have a lot of problems with this, and it's going to be hard for me to see it being passed. I don't know how the rest of the board feels, and it's certainly okay to continue this case, but I think it's a precedent-setting event, and I don't see special circumstances. Well, one thing, if I may, that she kind of conveyed to me and in her letter as well to the board, she emailed me the letter that she sent, was that there would be some limitations. And basically her limitations were the porch was not enclosed, the yard would not be reduced. And without seeing it, she didn't have an idea of what it was going to look like. She wanted to be characteristic of the neighborhood. Who are we talking about? I don't know who this woman is. Her name is Ms. Dixie Moore, and she conveyed herself to me as representing the neighborhood. I don't know if she's the president of the association or not. Well, there's a lot of opposition to this besides her, I think. And the basis of their opposition is... I just wanted to let you know that there's a big problem here. Is it just basically they don't want change or they don't want this kind of change? I'm saying I personally have a problem with this because of the precedent it sets in the neighborhood. That's all. Would you have a problem with a four-bay concrete garage as well? I would. I don't think you ought to take it any further. We're going to give you the contingents. I agree. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your time. I wasn't being disrespectful to you. It's just frustrating when you see so many different inconsistencies. But without limitations, as you say, it could go to the future. So I agree with that. Do I have a motion for the continuous, please? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Staff, anything you have? Mr. Chairman, we just note on the agenda on page 5, there is a training opportunity upcoming for board members on March the 14th. This will be another in the audio conference series that are held in the Division of Planning conference room. We certainly invite you to attend if your schedule is allowed. Thank you. Mr. Salley, may I ask if you would, you did this for us a couple years ago, can you produce something for us that shows how much continuing education that we need between now and December 31st? Sure. We'll be glad to give you an update. Thank you, sir. We thank the staff. Legal, we thank you as we do every day. And you're a great help to us, and me anyway. Staff, board, thank you. And do I hear a motion to adjourn, please? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. We're out of here. Thank you.