We're going to move on to the November Board of Adjustment meeting. At this time, a couple of matters to take care of. We do have some minutes that need to be approved. They should be in the packet. We've got minutes from May 25, 2007, and June 29, 2007, and then also to take care of a couple of a little older items. We've got minutes from June 5, 1989, and June 2, 1989. That needs to be taken care of. If everyone's had a chance to look at these minutes, I'll ask for a motion. Yes, ma'am. I move that we accept the minutes of June 2, 1989. And they certainly are interesting. That they were. Motion has been made for the approval of minutes from June 2, 1989. Is there a second? Second. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I also move that we accept the minutes of June 5, 1989. So to include in the motion June 5 and June 2 of 1989. Thank you. Is that okay with your second? That's fine. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. The motion passes. Also, as I mentioned, we do still have minutes from May 25, 2007 and June 29, 2007. Do we have a motion for those? Move approval of the minutes from May 25, 2007 and June 29, 2007. I'll second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Next, what we will do is, in looking at the agenda for today, we have nine items. I'd ask if there are any postponements or withdrawals for parties to come forward. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page 2 at the bottom, the first conditional use, item 1C, 2028, James G. Wilhite. We're requesting a postponement to the January meeting on that. I think the staff is agreeable with that. Could the staff give us the date for the January meeting? January 25. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I have a concern. Since this is a hearing for revocation, I'm assuming that there is concern on behalf of the staff that the conditions are not being met, as I've read this. And it concerns me that this is being postponed month after month after month. It seems to me that this might be a situation where we ask for maybe this is the last postponement. Ms. Bell, at this point, I tend to agree. Bill, in the inspection, can you add any? Do you have any? No, I wouldn't object to one more postponement. This is clearing up a lot of concerns, not only with the previously approved site plan, but the adjacent lot. They're moving forward in the right direction, and I feel like one more month. I don't know what Mr. Murphy's schedule is right now, but I appreciate your all's indulgence. It's not a violation, per se, that deals with the activities going on there. It's a site issue over a parking lot. And I think, given some adequate time, there have been some real complications with an adjoining lot of this parcel. And this kind of puts their feet to the fire to remedy a bigger issue. So your indulgence is appreciated. This is really going to clear up far more than what meets the eye, if we can just allow that. I should have told you a little bit more about what's been going on behind the scenes. Dr. Wilhite has retained an engineer, Tim Thompson, who has completed a site plan of the property and has met with Mr. Brock and needs to meet with him next week. Our engineer is out of town this week and couldn't be here for this meeting. Dr. Wilhite had to go to a funeral today, too, so that's sort of a complication. But we have been working over the last six weeks, two months, meeting with the staff to deal with the concerns they have. And it's our plan. The reason I asked for January, it's our plan to we need to amend our conditional use site plan that was previously approved. So we're planning to meet the December 17th filing deadline to have that on January 25th as well. So we get all the issues together before you at one time rather than having one hearing and having to come back the next month with a hearing on some more of it, too. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion to say one more postponement? We definitely need a motion for the postponement. Let me try and clarify real quick. Mr. Murphy, at this point, are you saying that you should be able to come to us and let us hear this on the January 25th hearing in approximately two months? Yes. The reason I didn't ask for December is because your meeting is just two weeks from now and we've already missed the filing deadline for that to amend our conditional use site plan for that one. But you think everything will be in order for the January hearing? Yes, I think so. All right. But, yes, we do need a motion for a postponement. I so move. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Motion's been made in second and for postponement of C2000-28 until the January 25th, 2008, hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That is with the understanding that this is the last. It should go forward, yes. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other postponement withdrawals? Yes, sir. Your name, sir? My name's Cole Bennett. I'm speaking on behalf of Jack Stewart, also on page 2, V2007-99. We're requesting postponement for the January 25th meeting. Okay. Well, maybe you should have asked on the other one, but are there anybody else in the audience that was here to speak in regards to the case request for Jack Stewart? No? Okay. I'm sorry. You're asking for a postponement? Postponement for the January 25th meeting. Until the January meeting, January 25th hearing? Okay. Any questions from the board? If not, I'd entertain a motion. I move we postpone the 2007-99 Jack Stewart's appeal until the January meeting. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, I'll postpone until the January 25th hearing for V2007-99 Mr. Jack Stewart. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. We'll see you in January. Any other requests for postponement or withdrawals? If not, at this time what we will do, we'll go through and sound the agenda as far as anyone wishing to speak or if there's any opposition in regards to any of the cases. The first case on the agenda is V2007-98 Mark Stromquist. This is recommended for disapproval, so we will wait to hear that. Are there anybody other than the applicant that's here to speak in regards to this? No? Okay. The next one would be V2007-100 Chris Comstock, who has property located at 500 North Broadway. Is the applicant here? No. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this? No. Okay. The next case would be C2007-94 Hargis Sexton, who appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an equine hospital in the AR zone located at 4260 Georgetown Road. Is the applicant here? Yes. Thank you. Anyone to speak in opposition of this? Yes. Okay. Reginald Thomas, on behalf of the local park situated nearby, owns an equine hospital. Okay. Thank you. We will take these in order as they come up. The next would be C2007-95 Diana Ross, who appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a one-room bed and breakfast located at 215 North Mill Street. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Anyone to speak in opposition of this? No. Okay. Thank you. The next would be C2007-96 Lexington Cemetery, who appeals for a conditional use permit to construct an addition in an AU zone located at 833 West Main Street. Would the applicant be here? Yes. Thank you. Any opposition to this? No. And then we also have C2007-97 First United Methodist Church, appealing for a conditional use permit to construct a two-story addition located in an R2 zone at 318 South Mill Street. Is the applicant here? Yes. Anyone to speak in opposition of this? No. Okay. Thank you. And then Clayton Sines, A2007-73. I believe this is recommended for disapproval. It's been here before. Is the applicant here? Okay. Thank you. Anyone in opposition of this? No. Okay. Thank you. What we will attempt to do is take the cases that are scheduled for approval and ones that have no opposition so that we can, time-wise, make it a little bit easier on some of the folks here. Prior to starting, I would like to ask anyone who plans to speak or give testimony today in regards to any of the items on the docket to be sworn in. And then I'd ask you to rise and raise your right hand. Please stand. Anyone that's going to be speaking in regards to the items on the docket. Do you swear the information you're about to give shall be the truth? Please say, I do. Okay. Thank you. The first case would be V2007-100, Chris Comstock, who appeals for variance to reduce the required side street side yard on West 5th Street. Please come forward. State your name, please. Chris Comstock. Thank you for being here. Have you looked at staff's recommendations? Yes, sir. Do you agree with them? Yes. Are there any questions from the board or any comments from the staff? If not, I'd entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that V-2007-100, Chris Comstock, appeals for variance to reduce the required side street yard along West 5th Street from 8 feet to 10 to 0 feet in order to construct a detached carport in a planned neighborhood resident historical district overlay R3 zone H1 on property located at 500 North Broadway be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of V-2007-100, Mr. Chris Comstock. All those in favor, please say, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. The next case that we'd hear would be C-2007-95, Diana Ross, appeals for conditional use permit to establish a one-room bed and breakfast in a two-family residential historic district overlay on property located at 215 North Mill Street. Yes, ma'am. I'm Diana Ross. Thank you for being here. Give us just a second to pass the letters through. As they're coming down, have you ran the conditions for this approval? Yes. Any questions? No. Are you in agreement of? I'm in agreement, yes. Mr. Chairman? Yes, ma'am. With regard to the two letters that we got that are being passed out, they each reference two recommended additional conditions, which we are in agreement with, and we've also discussed it briefly with the applicant, and I believe that she's in agreement to adding two conditions. And when you're all ready, I can put those up on the screen. If you would, please. Condition number seven would read that no signage is allowed for the bed and breakfast facility. And then condition number eight would read that the conditional use shall become null and void should the appellant cease to reside on or own the subject property. And the intent with number eight is if either one of those takes place, that it would be null and void. Can I ask a question, please? Staff. I see you've recommended approval of this as a staff. We recommend approval, but yet we're going to tell them that you can't allow signage or let anyone know that you have a bed and breakfast in that situation? Why is that? The main concern from the neighborhood is that those are the kind of things that change the character of their neighborhood, which they consider to have special, you know, and like I said, we've talked about it with Ms. Ross, and she has no problems. She had no intention of putting signage up anyway, I don't believe. So if we can get things to where the neighborhood's comfortable with it, then we always try to do that. Will you be marketing using the Internet? Yes. I prefer to not have a sign myself. Thank you. I rest my case. Any other questions? I just, I have one question. So it appears then that you could only rent to a couple and you couldn't rent to a family, right? I can only rent one room. One room and no more than two people in it? No more than two people. So it could be a, so you couldn't have a couple and a child then? No. Okay. I guess not. Ms. Ross, who owns this property? I do. One hundred percent? Yes. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'd entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I move that C-2007-95, Diana Ross, appeals for conditional use permit to establish a one-room bed and breakfast in a two-family residential historic district overlay R2H1 zone on property located at 215 North Leo Street in Council District 1, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions that will include the two conditions that were submitted today. Okay. That would be for a total of eight conditions, if everyone is understanding that, for clarification purposes. The motion has been made by Mr. Stout, seconded by Ms. Bell, for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck. Ms. Ross? The next case would be C-2007-96, Lexington Cemetery, appealing for a conditional use permit to construct a building addition in an AU zone on property located at 833 West Main Street. Yes, sir. Your name, sir? My name is Troy Thompson. I represent Lexington Cemetery. We've read and agreed to the conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board or comments from the staff? If not, I'd entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend C-2007-96, Lexington Cemetery, appeal for a conditional use permit to construct a building addition, expansion to an employee break room in an agriculture urban AU zone on property located at 833 West Main Street, Council District 2, as recommended for approval by staff with the two conditions that exist. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of C-2007-96, Lexington Cemetery. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. The next case would be C-2007-97, First United Methodist Church, who appeals for a conditional use permit to construct a two-story addition to an existing classroom in a two-family residential historic district overlay zone on property located at 318 South Mill Street. Your name, sir? Yes, sir. Foster Ockerman, Jr. I'm the attorney for First United Methodist Church. We are in agreement with the conditions listed. I do want to clarify because the staff's explanation under staff recommendation A does not make clear that the intent is to use the entire building, not just the addition for offices. So we're changing from classroom use to office use and adding on to the building at the same time. Okay. Are there any questions from the board in regards to this? If not, I'd entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Motion has been made for approval. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded for approval. C-2007-97, the First United Methodist Church. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Ockerman. Okay. The next case we'll hear, hopefully not jumping around very much, since this is recommended for approval is C-2007-94, Mr. Hargis Sexton. Since they stepped out, we'll go to the next one and wait for them to come back, which would be B-2007-98, Mark Stromquist, who appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 40 feet to 32 feet in order to construct a residence in a single-family R1B zone on property located 1272 Cape Cod Circle. Yes, sir. Your name? Mark Stromquist. Mark Stromquist. Okay. Sure. Please. Mr. Stromquist, since the staff is recommending for disapproval on this, I will ask for the staff to walk us through this first. Please. This request is for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 40 feet to 32 feet. It relates to a vacant property in the Parker's Landing subdivision. It's in an R1B zone, which has a front yard building line requirement of 40 feet. This is a view of that vacant lot. I think we're getting it better here. This particular lot, as well as the others along Cape Cod Circle, back immediately on to New Circle Road. This brush in the back is at least some of it, and the associated berm, which you cannot see too well here, are partially at least located within a screening easement that's established along New Circle Road in that area. That's part of the applicant's justification, and I think he'll elaborate on that when he presents his information. This is a fairly deep lot, almost 150 feet in depth. Based on our assessment, it appeared there was sufficient room, absent a variance to put the house that he was proposing on that lot and still have a usable backyard area. Part of the issue here is the extent to which the berm has been placed outside of that 20-foot wide screening easement. I think a lot of what he presents will detail some of that. This next photograph will show the adjacent property that the appellant is very familiar with, because I think he owns and lives there. I don't know if we can get this any more contrast at all. The backyard was hopefully going to show up here. But for that property, without a variance, there was a very usable backyard. This next shot is for the next house down, also showing, or at least attempting to show, the usable backyard area for that residence. We calculated, based on the location of the easement and the house that he was proposing to put on there, absent a variance that you'd have a backyard of at least around 30 feet in depth. The variance that requested is to 32 feet. Our assessment also indicated that by averaging the building line provided, or the front yard provided by the offsets in the house, that that's probably overly cautious. By averaging, you could probably reduce it down to just 35 feet and still put the house that he wants to put on there at the location that he proposed. We don't think that there's a full variance required to 32 feet, even to accommodate what he had proposed on his site plan. Given the depth of the lot and what we consider to be a lot of usable space back there, we didn't feel there was sufficient justification for reducing the front yard at this location. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Any questions from the board for Mr. Marks at this point? If not, Mr. Stromquist, go right ahead. I just wanted to show that on the first page here, it shows the berm. The developer, he just generally told the guy to go out and mound up some dirt. There's a note there that it varies in height and alignment. I had it softened. You can see on the second page there that I had it softened so that I could mow it because it was just too steep to manage. I've owned the lot for a couple of years now, and it was just too steep for me to mow. You can see on the next page I had the proposed house plotted out there on the lot. That's with no adjustment or averaging or anything. That's just placing the house using the existing 40-foot building line. You can see if I built that house with the grade away from the house, it would almost grade right into where the berm is. Just my concern is if I did average it up a few feet without an adjustment, I would be restricted on the amount of flat ground that I would have. The next page here I have with the flag, and it measures out to 105 feet. It does two-dimensionally. It leaves me with 45 feet left on the lot. But as you can see by this picture, the berm is very large. I could probably adjust the berm a little bit, but it just doesn't leave me without any kind of adjustment or anything. It doesn't leave me a lot of flat space back there. As you can see on the next picture, I showed kind of a side view with the four-plank fences just barely noticeable back through there. It just kind of gives you some idea of the distance that I'm dealing with with that mound and where the fence is. And originally when I came to the staff for an adjustment, I was only seeking for 35 feet. But after talking with Mr. Marks, we had decided that I'd be smarter to go for the 32 feet. I'd have a better chance of maybe placing the house on there. But if I could get even 35 feet with averages, that would give me an adequate amount of space. Thank you, Mr. Stromquist. Any questions from the board? Comments? Concerns? Mr. Stromquist, you said you owned the property for about two years. Yes, sir. Is that pretty close? Pretty close, yes, sir. When was this land developed? Just a guess. I would say, I'd probably say maybe seven years ago or something like that. 1998. It says 12-1-1998. This was when the flat was drawn. It was probably shortly after that date. You live in the house that's, I guess, currently for sale? Yes. I live in the house next door. Did you build that? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes. And that house is more of a rectangle. So I didn't have a need to go over the building line. But this other plan that my wife's picked out, she kind of likes it, the garage sticks out. So that's pushed the girth of the whole house back. And with a third-car garage in that neighborhood, it's really just a storage room. They don't allow an exterior building for your mower, bikes, all that kind of stuff. So I've got the third-car garage is important out there. Sir, did you know the size of the lot when you purchased it? Yes, ma'am. And you knew the size of the house when you decided? No. How did you know? Yes, ma'am. I just didn't realize how far back it was going to actually go until I assumed when I first bought the house and I first bought the lot that you measured the building line off the street. But for some reason in my neighborhood, or maybe that's the case a lot of places, but it's actually measured off the street closer to the sidewalk. And that cost me, I think it's 40 inches or something off the street, off the curb, is where the 40 feet begins to be measured. So that was an extra two. There were other things that went into consideration that I didn't consider. Other questions? Mr. Marks, if you would, go back over the averaging of that front in reference to the building line. Well, Mr. Yu might be a lot better able technically to explain that than me. I can try. It's basically, in a nutshell, for every square foot you build in front of the building line, you need to make that up in some form of offset in the remaining structure to make up for that square footage that you've put in the front yard. I haven't run any calculations on this. It looks like it's very close to averaging. To the right of the garage you see that inset, and then it looks like maybe the front porch. That area there could go against whatever area he's pushed forward in front of the building line. He's allowed to build in front of the building line to a point as long as he can average that amount of square foot behind the building line. I haven't run the numbers on it, but did you try to average this? I did try to average it, and it moved the house up about three and a half, four feet. Now, there was something he said that is easy to miss, and that was where the property lines start. A majority of the time, and I'm talking about 90 percent of the time, most property lines start at the curb line, so it's an easy measure. There are some neighborhoods, for whatever reason, whatever anomaly there was during the development, they have set that back anywhere from two to four feet behind that curb, kind of almost where the sidewalk would start. And it's a real easy miss. Sometimes you really have to study the plants real carefully to find that, and we've had instances in our office where we've almost missed them, too. So that was a real --. I do kind of feel sympathetic toward that because that's an easy miss, especially for someone who doesn't deal with it a great deal. So I do have a little sympathy for that anomaly. The berm itself is kind of an unusual fact. The fact that he's got two front yards sometimes makes a difference in how these lots were made. When they built the berm, it probably had no consideration at all of future development of that lot, and they probably just spilled the berm into that front yard to a point. I haven't seen it, but it looks like it at least takes up 20 feet of his front yard. So he does have some site issues that could affect this development pretty well. Additionally, if he's got plans for a deck or any kind of outdoor patio or kitchen or something like that in the future, he's kind of being robbed a little bit from the berm existence. So I kind of feel like he's got a pretty legitimate request. I don't think he's overextending his boundaries to the point it's going to be an eyesore in the neighborhood. It's certainly not a technical issue as far as construction, but I think he's got enough site issues, in my opinion, to get this granted. Mr. Stromquist, on your second photograph, the one with the two-by-four that's standing on the ground, it looks like it's a pretty good view of the house next door, and its backyard is small also. Yes, that particular house is built on a gas easement. There's a 40-foot gas easement that goes through there, and he built right on it. So currently the city stopped construction, and he's not allowed to finish until they do something. So he wasn't very concerned with his placement. Well, I guess what I'm saying is there are people that don't like to have big yards, and your designing of this house, you're putting a lot of emphasis on the relief in the front yard, and I can understand the curb appeal you gain from that, but the sacrifice is what you lose in the back. I really feel like even though you have some sympathy from Jim over there, that this seems like a problem of your own making, and you could have a larger backyard if you had a more rectangular house. I agree with that. The problem is on the left-hand side, let's see, facing the house on the right-hand side, there's a utility easement, which you can't see it on anything I've got, but that restricted the width, and we wanted a first-floor master house, so that restricted the width, and it has to be a side entry garage, so that restricted the width even more, so it did make the house a little deeper. Mark, I realize that it's just that you can want a lot of things, but there's always tradeoffs, so a first-floor master might mean you have a small backyard. Oh, I understand that, but that's why I came to you guys to ask, to see if you guys could help me out. I appreciate it. I'm just afraid of setting a precedent when there's not any real constraints here that couldn't be overcome with a different design. Well, I— Just to let you know where I'm standing. Okay, yes, I understand. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions or comments from the Board? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move B-2007-98, Mark Stromquist's, appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 40 feet to 32 feet in order to construct a residence in a single-family residential R1B zone on property located at 1272 Cape Cod Circle be disapproved for the reasons given by the staff. Thank you, Mr. Frerichs. Motion has been made for disapproval of B-2007-98. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded by Mrs. Bell for disapproval. If there's no other questions or comments, I'll call for a vote. All those in favor of a disapproval, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye. Motion for disapproval passes. Sorry, sir. Thank you. Okay. The next case would be B-2007-94, Mr. Hargis Sexton. Is the applicant here? Please come forward. Thank you. State your name. My name is Chris Westover, and I represent the applicant in this conditional use permit. We have reviewed the staff report and the conditions, and we agree with them and will abide by them. Earlier, there is an opponent out here. We talked with him in the hallway, and I don't know if it would be better for him to hear what they have to say and then we can respond, but we think that we can deal with their concerns in a way that will suit everybody. Okay. All right. Thank you. At this point, this is recommended for approval. As far as the board, do you have any questions for Ms. Westover? Ms. Westover, I would ask as far as the proposed method for muck removal. Yes. What will that be? It's proposed to have daily pickup and to be hauled away. Okay. So no storage? No. It's proposed to be picked up and disposed of regularly by a service such as Creech, something like that. Okay. Are you saying that's going to be done on a daily basis? Yes. Okay. And you would accept that to be a condition added to the first condition? Well, I'm sorry, Ms. Bell, and I missed it as well. I think it's stated that it is to be disposed of on a daily basis under condition seven. I apologize. I had it underlined. I missed it myself. Any other questions for Ms. Westover? No. If not, Ms. Westover, with the opposition being here, I'd like to hear from them. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens. Yes, sir. My name is Reginald Thomas. Good afternoon, members of the board. I'm here to speak on behalf of the owners of the mobile home park that are next door to this proposed equine hospital. We object to going forward with this additional use permit for two very important reasons. First of all, it's universally recognized in the industry that there is no septic tank that is leach-proof, that in any use of a septic tank, there's generally some leaching from the waste of that septic tank into the ground. That's universally understood, Chairman Owens and members of the board. Our concern is because already my clients house two sewage treatment plants that treat sewage from the mobile home park, that prevent any waste going into the Cane Run Creek. There's a Cane Run Creek that runs alongside the mobile home park, that we prevent any waste going in there, that any leaching from this septic tank is going to leach into the ground. That leaching will eventually go into Cane Run Creek and ultimately, ultimately, leach into the aquifer at the Royal Spring that feeds into the water supply at Georgetown, Kentucky. Let me repeat that, members of the board. The residents of Georgetown, Kentucky's primary water supply comes from the aquifer in the Royal Spring, that runs alongside the Cane Run Creek. There's been no information provided that talks about how this equine hospital is going to deal with the leaching from the septic tank, and that's going to leach into the ground and ultimately Cane Run Creek. I would submit to you that the wiser approach for the Board of Adjustment today would be to stay any ruling regarding approval of this until you can get further information from the engineers as to how this hospital intends to deal with any treatment that's going to be required from any leaching from this septic tank. So those are the basis for my objections that I bring to your attention this afternoon. Mr. Thomas? Yes, sir. I don't understand your thinking about the leaching out of a septic tank. Those are concrete boxes with concrete lids on them. And then from the septic tank where the solids remain, the effluent goes to a leach field, which is intended to take those liquids and put them into the ground. But see, Mr. Griggs, where I would disagree with your statement is that what will happen is that some of that leaching, sir, is going to go into the ground and ultimately spill over into Cane Run Creek. That is a very real possibility from the waste and from the muck that will go into the septic tank. I'm still not understanding what you mean. A septic tank is a universally accepted way of disposing of waste, and there's a health department that makes sure that the ground is able to accept the effluent. Well, I understand that, but I don't think that's really been the case here up to this point, Mr. Griggs. And I would urge you, sir, to get more information from the health department tank as to the nature of this, from the health department, as to the nature of the septic tank before you grant this conditional use. I think that would be a wise approach by the Board of Adjustment at this point, to get more information from the health department about the quality of the septic tank that's going to be installed here before you approve it. So your concern is about the human waste that will be generated in these facilities and the septic system that's built to handle that? Absolutely. Right now, Mr. Griggs, my client operates two sewage treatment plants that are near that mobile home park, and we do that in accordance with the environmental standards as established by the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We're in compliance with both of those to manage the waste that comes from the mobile home park now. You're now proposing to add in an equine hospital that invariably is going to have animal waste and chemicals and medicines that treat these animals now leaching to that ground that's going to leach into Cane Run Creek, that ultimately will affect the aquifer and the Royal Spring that is the primary, Mr. Griggs, let me emphasize that, the primary water supply for the residents of Georgetown, Kentucky. And that should not be taken lightly. I assure you I don't take it lightly, but I do think having animals on this land is an appropriate use. It's zoned AR. And if there needs to be a condition added so that there's a double check on the septic system that's designed, I could agree to that. Ms. Bell? Do you know, Ms. Westover, has the health department approved a septic system? I mean, has the development of this facility reached the level of the health department saying it's okay to have a septic system? The applicant has requested information from the health department on whether the ground would perk and whether it was suitable to have a septic tank on this property. And they said that it was suitable, that it passed the perk test. Now, typically they don't issue the septic tank permit until after there's an approval of something like this. Two other points. One is that where any septic tank in any septic field would be is far away from the floodplain area that's close to the front of the property. And finally, and importantly, I've asked Ms. Rackers to, at the appropriate time, put up the map of the location of the Royal Springs Aquifer Recharge Area. This property is not within the aquifer recharge area. This property, you'll see, it will be to the west of the area. And it's probably around where the O and the W is in Georgetown Road. And as you see, the aquifer recharge area follows I-75, and this property is to the west of that. The railroad track's not on there, but the property's to the west of the railroad track as well. So it does not, it is not in the aquifer recharge area. And in talking with Bill Lestry, the landscape architect, he said the land slopes up away and would not drain into it. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to also mention that our environmental planner, Jim Redman, reviewed this, and he confirmed that it's not located within the recharge area. Okay. Thank you. May I respond to that, please, Chairman Owens? Sir. May I respond to that? Yes. Okay. The issue that I raised, Chairman Owens and members of the board, is not that the hospital is in the aquifer area. I will acknowledge that it's not. Our concern is if you look at that ballpoint pen and move it closer to Georgetown Road, the equine hospital's going to be located on Georgetown Road, about approximately a quarter of a mile from that area. Our concern is that the waste from the septic tank is going to eventually leach over into the aquifer area, which is only 440 yards away, and that that is what's going to ultimately have an impact on that aquifer in the Royal Spring. It's not built in the area, but it's only a quarter of a mile from it. And that's certainly my concern and what I'm bringing to your attention today. I don't understand that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You know, I think for the most part, you know, in an AR zone, particularly when there's not a sewer situation involved, a sewer line per se, you know, we are dependent on septic tanks. And whether this be an equine hospital or a residence that goes in, even a residence is going to be dependent on a septic tank. And I believe engineering, you know, normally we have a condition within the – where there is sewer situations that pretty much states that I believe, if I'm not right, if I'm correct, that the sewer and stormwater management plan shall be implemented subject to acceptance by a division of engineering. I'm sure that would be the situation here as well. The septic tank would have to be approved by the health department. And, you know, any drainage or leaching from that septic system, you know, is subject to approval by the health department. That's my belief anyway. Would you agree? Yes. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Any other concerns? Thank you, Mr. Thomas. If there's no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bell, could you close your microphone, please? I want to thank the people who have raised the concern about the leaching and so forth, because I do think it's an important part of citizenship to be aware of the importance of taking care of the land and so forth. At the same time, I do think it's – that the information that has been presented about the location, about septic systems, et cetera, is important and helpful in making a decision. And, therefore, I move that C-2007-94, the Harkin's Sextant Appeals for a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an equine hospital in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 4260 Georgetown Road be approved with the eight conditions noted by the staff. Thank you, Mrs. Bell. Motion has been made for approval of C-2007-94. Is there a second? There is a second by Mrs. Moore. If there's no further questions, all those in favor for approval of C-2007-94, Mr. Harkin's Sextant, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. And thank you for coming, all of you. I think the remaining item on the agenda is A-2007-73, Clayton Signs, Incorporated, who appeals for administrative review to allow a pre-sale menu board as a freestanding sign in a planned shopping center B6P zone on property located at 2514 Nicholasville Road. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Your name, sir? Roderick Saylor. I work at GRWP. I'm here to represent Clayton Signs. Glad that you're here. I've got a few handouts here. I've got a PowerPoint presentation for breakfast as well. It will be available to you when I get here. Okay. I kind of got into this way late in the game Monday. Someone approached me asking if I could come and represent Clayton Signs. So I tried to catch up and do some research on it and pore over the ordinance a little bit. I spoke to several people and it appears, word for word out of the ordinance, it's not specified to allow such a sign. So I guess to begin, I wanted to kind of define what exactly it is that Chick-fil-A was looking to install. It's a small four-and-a-half-foot tall pre-sale menu board. If you go to the next couple pages, there are kind of some examples that I took in the area. This is a Chick-fil-A that's proposed at Nicholsville Road in front of Kmart. It will be on the frontage lot. There's a landscaping plan later on in the slides that I'll show you. Apparently, and speaking with staff, it sounds like a lot of these places, the first picture I've got here is Wendy's across the street. They've installed one. I believe all these have been done without being permitted. The Long John Silvers in Nicholsville Road actually has two in front of their business. The Rally is just on down the road. And then Chick-fil-A is, or excuse me, Fazoli is just on down the road as well. I don't believe, even though these guys have gone through and done these signs without permits, it's done maliciously to spot the landscape with small signs to kind of clutter up the area. They actually serve a pretty good purpose for these businesses. It helps reduce the wait time. One car pulls up. It's really no use, but a second car pulls up. They've got statistics that show that it reduces the time that a customer has to wait in order to place their order so they get more cars through quickly. The stacking requirement for Fayette County, I believe, is just five cars. If you've been to Chick-fil-A, at least on Harrisburg Road, during lunch, the cars can wrap around the building. And with this sign, it kind of helps speed up that process. I would say, you know, using their statistics, if you did not have a sign, you're looking at maybe increasing your stacking that could cause conflict with traffic. So I've kind of looked at this a couple different ways. And I don't know if these are stretches to our ordinance or not. The slide, the next slide that I've got, I'm going through this page here, shows the main menu board sign. The square footage in the ordinance, I believe, allows up to a 30-square foot for a 17-7F-7, allows for one menu board up to 30 square feet. If it could be allowed to split that square footage between their main menu board and their smaller pre-sale board, that could be a possibility because the total square footage only comes up to 27.92 square feet. But like I said, I don't know if I'm pushing the boundaries of that variance or that particular portion of the ordinance. I guess going to the next slide that I kind of mentioned already, the 46 cars, or 46 seconds per vehicle. To move on through, that gives you up to approximately 55 hours per week of additional wait time or time saved, however you want to look at that, with the pre-sale board. From an environmental standpoint, they've actually gone through and multiplied that out to 17 weeks, which would equal one car sitting idle for 17 weeks over an entire span of a year. If you'll go to the last two pages, the next to last page is kind of a full site plan, landscaping plan for the site. I included this to kind of address part B of the staff recommendations as far as the visibility of the sign. The very last page is a little bit more blown up with the site plan. It shows extensive landscaping. There are maple trees, not a landscape architect, but plant shrubs called yews. They have a planting height of 24 inches that will border around the outside of the drive-thru and also up front on the road frontage, where there's also a berm along Nicholasville Road. I don't believe site visibility would be an issue from either Nicholasville Road or even Kmart from behind. That all being said, I guess I'll open it up to discussion for it or to see where we go from here, because recommendation C is actually from the staff, states that the board doesn't have the authority to permit this sign. So, now. Thank you, Mr. Saylor. Maybe I should have asked Mr. Marks and the staff to walk us through this, since they are recommending disapproval. And since I'm a little tardy doing that, I'll ask for Mr. Marks to do it now. I think the thing I'd like to focus on a little bit, if we could, is the landscaping plan. Mr. Saylor, you presented the location of that pre-sale board. Yes. It isn't consistent, and I'm not saying this was intentional by any means, but it's not consistent with the original site plan that we got, where there was a lot of confusion about exactly where the pre-sale board was going to be located. It appeared from the original site plan. It was much further back towards Nicholasville Road. Where it's tucked in there now, I think there probably could be a reasonable argument that it's exempt, and that would be a much preferable route from my perspective. I mean, if it really is in a location where it's not visible from beyond the boundaries of a lot, that's consistent with the ordinance. I'd hate to get into where you're inclined to improve this based on the information in a manner that's pretty inconsistent with what the ordinance says. So I'd kind of like to maybe follow up on that part of this, if we could. Okay, yeah, I apologize. I'm kind of coming to this midstream. If that is, if the original site plan showed it in another location, I'm not, unless they put it on the right side of the drive-throughs you're pulling in, there's sidewalk on the left side, at least along the long side of the building there. I don't know where they could place it. The only realistic place would be where it's shown here, and this is actually in the plan that I had. If you were able to zoom in, it shows it here. Yeah, well, that's fine. That's a better location in terms of reducing the visibility of it. If that would help and I could push that onto them, I think they'd be more than open to making sure that that is the constructed location of the sign. That would be my recommendation, that just you all could, for the record, just say that if they can site this where they are proposing, to the extent that they do landscaping to where it's not visible, it's exempt by the ordinance. Do they have time between now and our next meeting, a couple of weeks, to submit this to you in a proper fashion so that we don't have any misunderstanding as to where it's going to be or where it should be versus what you all are talking about now? Well, I think basically what Mr. Marks is saying is if they're going to site it as his current plan shows and it is not visible from off of their property, there's no need for any action by this board at all. They don't need any relief because then they clearly fall under the provisions of the zoning ordinance that exempt that sign from regulation. He could actually withdraw his application based on the new submittal of this new site plan because then it wouldn't be an issue at all. What do you think, Jim? Chairman, I move that we withdraw. Well, I don't know how closely you work with Greg on making these decisions about whether it's exempt or not, but, I mean, it looked like it was. Well, our discussions revolved around the exemption of where it's located. I couldn't even find it on their submitted site plan. But I agree with you that the new location is certainly less visible, if visible at all. That's where everyone else's sign is. On this one, the one that's submitted. The second one, the one submitted today. Well, that's all well and good. If you can't see it from the road, I mean, it's closer to the ordinance. I think we could continue this. I think that, I don't know that there would be time with the short span between this meeting and the next, if we continued it to January to allow him to present the new location to building inspection. Building inspection can go out and check the size of the sign, where it's going to be located. And if they agree that it is not visible, then he can withdraw his application before the January meeting. If it turns out that there is not agreement between building inspection and the applicant, then it certainly could come before the board again for determination in January. Okay. So would you like a motion to postpone to January? Well, I think it would be a continuance because you've heard, you've started to hear the case. And if you do need to come back to it, it would be continuing so that the evidence you've heard today would be part of the record. If it would please the Chair, I move that we continue this case to January. Yeah, definitely pleases the Chair. Motion's been made for continuance until the January 25th hearing, I believe is right. I need a second on that. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion for continuance did pass. Thank you, Mr. Saylor, for providing us with this information and hopefully getting this cleared up. I believe as far as what's on the agenda, that pretty much covers it. Any other board items that need to be taken care of at this time? Any concerns from the board? Staff items? I have a question and I can handle this two different ways. We have a case on, I think it's 1424 Alexandria Drive a few years ago. An applicant came in for a restaurant called Producimos to have accessory live entertainment. They have now converted into a nightclub. I can either void their conditional use permit just through regular channels or request a revocation hearing based on the usage, change in usage. Is there an area where the noise is going to affect the people that live behind it? We've already received one complaint about it, so I don't mind. Like I said, I can do it administratively in my office and just write them and revoke them and then request that they have to reappear for the nightclub because it is also a conditional use or do a revocation hearing and officially have it done through URAL's actions and then still request them to come back and reappear for a request for a nightclub. If it's fair for the last group we had last month, it's fair for them. That's fine. I would say that I would recommend that you do that. Mr. Eames, is this a B1 zone? I'm sorry? What zone is this? Do you know? Is it a B1 neighborhood business? You know, Jim, I don't know right off the bat. I'm just wondering, is the cocktail lounge treated the same as a restaurant and bar as far as? Well, I guess with a name change and all this, I haven't even contacted them yet to see if it's a new owner. It was just such an issue when it came before the board because of the noise issue and the proximity to the neighborhood. Yeah, because it's very close. As a matter of fact, I'm not too sure if there wasn't a variance included in that distance because there's a distance requirement in it. There was not a variance for that case. Okay. Would there be for a nightclub, Jim, with a live entertainment? Evidently they've picked up their live entertainment, and it may even be beyond the hours. I know there was some limitation of hours. So I think given this question, I think I'll just request a revocation hearing and then go from there. Okay. Are you uncomfortable with that, Jim? I don't know. I don't know if Rochelle has any ideas about what the most efficient way to accomplish the goal here is. I guess my concern is I haven't heard yet what conditions were imposed and which conditions are being violated. And I don't think we can schedule a revocation hearing until you've looked at what were the conditions imposed and to what extent and which condition do you believe the facts show are being violated. And I think that has to be presented to the board for them to make a decision to schedule a revocation hearing. That's fine. I'll just pick it up and bring it to you next month. Just a little more detail, I think. That's fine. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Other items? We have a draft meeting schedule for 2008 that we need to take action on. Was that provided? Yes, sir. It is? Okay. An addendum. This official meeting following schedule for 2008 needs to be approved. I would presume with a motion. Has everyone had a chance to look at this? Any questions? Concerns? Motion for approval? Move to approve. Motion has been made for approval of the draft and following schedule for 2008. Is there a second? Motion and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. With us on the agenda as far as landscape review committee, do we need to take any action on that? Approval of? Yes, you need to reappoint Ms. Stephan. She's agreed to do it. Well, if you choose. Unless you want somebody else from the tree board. If you knew somebody else that would be willing to serve. But she has agreed to continue. Melissa Stephan has agreed to be reappointed if we so desire. Is there a motion? Mr. Stout made the motion for approval for Melissa Stephan to be reappointed. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Updated 2007 mailing list. Just a note for anybody who is interested in being on the mailing list. Okay. There's nobody anymore. Okay. So that's not an issue then. Please take note. I do have, Mr. Stout is just showing this. Yes. I do have something to explain to you. Please. I handed you each a packet of information. It's got the yellow hang tag. Starting next week, you're going to be able to park downstairs on the first floor in the garage of this building again. Okay. And they're asking that you come in through Water Street, the alley behind the building, and then come in the back door. And then along the wall, along the outside wall, there are parking spaces that are marked for Board of Adjustment Commission members and Urban County Council. They ask you to park in there. And then when you leave the building, come back out around like that and go back out that same door. Okay. And then come out the alleyway. And then please fill in any information. If you have more than one car, fill in any information about those cars so that they'll have that on record in general services. Stick that in the envelope that I've provided to you and mail it back to DELA as soon as possible so that they can get that on record in general services so that you don't get your car towed next time you park downstairs. And then put the hang tag in your car. If you change cars, be sure to put the hang tag in there so that you don't get your car towed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other items for discussion? If not, we'll take note that the next meeting is December 14th. A little bit earlier than usual if there's nothing else. Motion for adjournment. Oh, yeah. So moved and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? There we go. Thank you and have a nice weekend.