# Board of Adjustment Meeting - August 24, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 24, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2670 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2670?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-08-24 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 14,630 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 Board of Adjustment met on August 24, 2012, at 1:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Chair Kathryn Moore presiding. The board considered 10 agenda items, taking 12 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing 4 public comments. Of the items presented, two were postponed—the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association's administrative review of a zoning compliance permit for a Mobile MRI Facility and the Efren and Vladimera Alami administrative review of a drive-through facility in an R-3 zone. The remaining eight items were approved, including variances and conditional uses for a range of projects: a freestanding sign variance for Lexington Granite Company in an I-1 zone, a conditional use and landscape variance for Transylvania University's athletic facility, church expansions for Boone's Creek Baptist Church and Vineyard Community Church, an assisted living facility for Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC, a pawn shop expansion for RLG Investments, LLC, a home occupation tutoring business for Nadia Ali Benali, and live entertainment at a restaurant for David Romero. ## Attendance **Present:** Kathryn Moore, James Griggs, Noel White, Thomas Glover, Jim Gallimore, Chuck Saylor, Jim Marx, Tracy Jones, Jimmy Emmons, Bill Sallee, Wanda Howard, Richard Murphy, Bob Carter, Mark Matthews, Peter Fischer, John Davidson, Tony Barrett, Jay Million, Jason Banks, Ashley Deshawn, Ashraf, David Romero, Kay Swain, Dr. Octavio Hermida, Beth O'Donnell, and Jenny Stringer. **Absent:** Louis Stout, Janice Meyer, and Barry Stumbo. **Late:** None reported. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** The board unanimously approved minutes from February 24, 2012, on a motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Glover [timestamp: 00:02:31]. The board also unanimously approved minutes from May 18, 2012, on the same motion and second [timestamp: 00:02:31]. **Postponements** The board unanimously postponed case A-2012-45, the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association's appeal for administrative review of a mobile MRI facility permit, on a motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Ms. White [timestamp: 00:04:11]. The board unanimously postponed case A-2012-53, Efren and Vladimera Alami's appeal for administrative review of a drive-through facility in an R-3 zone, on a motion by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Glover [timestamp: 00:04:44]. **Variances and Conditional Use Permits** The board unanimously approved variance V-2012-54 for Lexington Granite Company to reduce a 10-foot right-of-way setback to 0 feet for a freestanding sign in an I-1 zone, on a motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Ms. White [timestamp: 00:09:38]. The sign must be constructed according to the submitted application and site plan, with all necessary permits obtained from the Division of Building Inspection. The board unanimously approved conditional use permit and landscape variance CV-2012-52 for Transylvania University to build an outdoor athletic facility and eliminate buffer along Coolavin Park, on a motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Glover [timestamp: 00:13:59]. Conditions include maintaining existing trees, directing lighting away from residential zones and the Florence Crittenden Home, and obtaining necessary permits. The board unanimously approved conditional use permits for: - C-2012-46: Boone's Creek Baptist Church gymnasium and education building expansion in an A-R zone, on a motion by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Griggs [timestamp: 00:16:12] - C-2012-49: Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC assisted living facility in a P-1 zone, on a motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Mr. Griggs [timestamp: 00:31:16] - C-2012-50: Vineyard Community Church worship center and parking expansion in an R-1D zone, on a motion by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Glover [timestamp: 00:32:19] - C-2012-51: RLG Investments, LLC pawn shop expansion in a B-3 zone, on a motion by Madam Chair, seconded by Second [timestamp: 00:34:34] - C-2012-47: Nadia Ali Benali's home occupation tutoring in a high-density apartment zone, on a motion by Madam Chair, seconded by Second [timestamp: 00:51:48] **Roll Call Vote** Case C-2012-48, David Romero's live entertainment at a restaurant in a neighborhood business zone, passed on a roll call vote with 3 ayes and 1 nay [timestamp: 01:51:35]. Voting in favor were Kathryn Moore, James Griggs, and Noel White. Thomas Glover voted against the motion, which was made by Madam Chair and seconded by Second. ## Public Comment Four community members provided public comment during the meeting, raising concerns about noise, parking, neighborhood character, and the decision-making process. **Kay Swain** [timestamp: 01:05:58] expressed concern about loud music and dancing at night, parking issues, and potential safety risks from patrons speeding through the neighborhood. She also noted that the fire gate is sometimes opened by unauthorized individuals. **Dr. Octavio Hermida** [timestamp: 01:09:48] stated that the neighborhood was assured during development that no loud entertainment would occur. He expressed concern about noise and music, as well as the type of patrons that would be attracted, especially during late hours. **Beth O'Donnell** [timestamp: 01:14:12] argued that the proposed use represents a significant shift from the quiet, family-oriented character of the neighborhood. She raised concerns about property values, parking, and the potential for increased noise and unsafe behavior. **Jenny Stringer** [timestamp: 01:23:31] requested that the board delay the decision and re-notice the hearing to allow for broader community input. She cited legitimate concerns from neighbors and the need to understand the full impact of the proposed use. The primary themes across all comments were noise and entertainment concerns, parking and traffic safety issues, and the potential impact on the neighborhood's established character and property values. ## Contested Items **Live Entertainment at Restaurant in Residentially Adjacent Zone** Residents raised significant concerns about a proposal to allow live entertainment at a restaurant located in a zone adjacent to residential areas. Community members expressed strong opposition focused on multiple impacts to neighborhood quality of life, including noise, parking congestion, safety issues, and changes to the character of the neighborhood. Multiple speakers emphasized that the proposed use represented a substantial shift from the previous quiet use of the property. Residents called for a six-month review period and broader notice requirements before any approval, citing the need for adequate time to assess the proposal's effects on the community. **Generator Placement for Assisted Living Facility** A disagreement arose regarding the placement of a generator for an assisted living facility. The board was divided on whether the proposed location was acceptable. One board member raised concerns about noise impacts and convenience related to the generator's placement. Although the applicant agreed to relocate the generator to address these concerns, the split vote reflected ongoing uncertainty about the suitability of the location. The board ultimately imposed a condition requiring the generator to be relocated, making the relocation a mandatory requirement rather than a voluntary concession. ## Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association - Administrative Review of Zoning Compliance Permit for Mobile MRI Facility **Agenda Item:** A-2012-45 The Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association presented an administrative review of a zoning compliance permit for a Mobile MRI Facility. [timestamp: 00:03:07] **Key Speakers:** - Richard Murphy - Jimmy Emmons **Action Taken:** The appeal was postponed to the September 28, 2012 meeting. The postponement was requested by both the property owner and the neighborhood association, and proceeded without opposition from any parties present. **Administrative Notes:** Staff confirmed that the postponement request was received after the legal advertisement period had concluded. ## Efren and Vladimera Alami - Administrative Review of Drive-Through Facility in R-3 Zone **Case Identifier:** A-2012-53 **Overview** This agenda item concerned an administrative review of a proposed drive-through facility in an R-3 zone for applicants Efren and Vladimera Alami. **Discussion** Jimmy Emmons addressed the item [timestamp: 00:04:44]. The applicants requested a postponement of the appeal to allow for additional time before the next hearing. **Outcome** The appeal was postponed to the September 28, 2012 meeting at the request of the applicants. The postponement proceeded with no opposition from other parties. Staff confirmed that the postponement request was received after the legal advertisement had been issued. ## Lexington Granite Company - Variance for Freestanding Sign in I-1 Zone **Case Number:** V-2012-54 **Outcome:** Approved unanimously [timestamp: 00:08:32] Lexington Granite Company requested a variance to allow a freestanding sign in an I-1 (Industrial) zoning district. **Key Speakers:** - Bob Carter - Jimmy Emmons **Staff Recommendation and Rationale:** Staff recommended approval of the variance based on several factors: - The wide right-of-way in the location - Lack of adverse impact on the surrounding area - The need to improve visibility for the business **Applicant Agreement:** The applicant agreed to two conditions imposed as part of the approval. The variance was approved unanimously by the board. ## Transylvania University - Conditional Use and Landscape Variance for Athletic Facility **Case Number:** CV-2012-52 **Outcome:** Approved The board considered a conditional use permit and landscape variance request for Transylvania University's athletic facility project [timestamp: 00:10:10]. Key speakers included Richard Murphy, Mark Matthews, Peter Fischer, and Jimmy Emmons. **Discussion and Clarifications** The applicant provided clarifications on two significant aspects of the project. First, they addressed plans related to fencing for the athletic facility. Second, they clarified the location and routing of the sewer line to ensure proper infrastructure coordination. **Modified Condition** The board approved the conditional use and variance with a modification to the conditions. The modification expanded the paved area allowance to include the track as part of the permitted paved surface calculation. This adjustment reflected the functional requirements of the athletic facility while maintaining compliance with zoning standards. **Staff Confirmation** Staff confirmed that the modified conditions were acceptable and that the applicant's clarifications on the fence and sewer line plans addressed the necessary technical requirements for the project. ## Boone's Creek Baptist Church - Conditional Use for Church Expansion in A-R Zone **Case Number:** C-2012-46 **Outcome:** Approved unanimously **Overview** The board considered a conditional use application for Boone's Creek Baptist Church to expand its facilities within an A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zone. [timestamp: 00:14:31] **Key Presenters** John Davidson and Jimmy Emmons presented information regarding the church expansion proposal. **Staff Recommendations** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use with five conditions: - Construction-related requirements - Septic system specifications - Cemetery protection measures - Additional conditions related to site development **Applicant Confirmation** The applicant confirmed that the proposed addition does not cross existing property lines, addressing a key consideration for the expansion within the zoned area. **Board Action** The conditional use permit was approved unanimously by the board, with all recommended conditions accepted as part of the approval. ## Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC - Conditional Use for Assisted Living Facility [timestamp: 00:17:54] The board considered a conditional use application from Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC for an assisted living facility in a P-1 zone, identified as agenda item C-2012-49. **Presentation and Key Speakers** Tony Barrett and Jimmy Emmons presented on this matter. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use with five conditions. These conditions addressed noise mitigation and parking requirements for the facility. **Applicant Agreement** During the discussion, the applicant agreed to relocate the generator to the dumpster area, addressing a concern that had been raised regarding the project. **Outcome** The conditional use was approved unanimously by the board. ## Vineyard Community Church - Conditional Use for Church Expansion in R-1D Zone **Case Number:** C-2012-50 **Outcome:** The conditional use permit was approved unanimously. **Key Speaker:** Jay Million **Summary** The board considered a conditional use permit application for Vineyard Community Church to expand operations in an R-1D residential zone. [timestamp: 00:31:49] The applicant agreed to preserve mature trees on the property as part of the development plan. Additionally, the applicant accepted two conditions related to site development and parking requirements. The conditional use permit was approved by unanimous vote of the board. ## RLG Investments, LLC - Conditional Use for Pawn Shop Expansion in B-3 Zone [timestamp: 00:33:26] RLG Investments, LLC requested a conditional use permit for a pawn shop expansion in a B-3 zone. The applicant submitted a revised site plan that addressed closure of access points and landscape buffer requirements in response to staff feedback. Staff recommended four conditions for approval of the conditional use permit. Jason Banks spoke during the discussion of this agenda item. The conditional use permit was approved unanimously by the board. ## Nadia Ali Benali - Conditional Use for Home Occupation Tutoring in High-Density Apartment Zone **Case Number:** C-2012-47 **Overview** The meeting addressed a conditional use application for Nadia Ali Benali to operate a home occupation tutoring business in a high-density apartment zone. [timestamp: 00:35:09] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Ashley Deshawn, Ashraf, and Jimmy Emmons. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended five conditions for approval of the conditional use permit. **Issues and Resolution** Traffic and parking concerns were raised regarding the proposed tutoring operation in the high-density residential area. Rather than proceeding through formal dispute resolution, the applicant and the neighborhood association reached an agreement addressing these concerns, which helped facilitate the approval process. **Outcome** The conditional use was **approved**. The approval included a six-month review condition, which will allow the city to assess the actual impact of the home occupation tutoring business on the neighborhood and ensure compliance with the agreed-upon terms regarding traffic and parking. ## David Romero - Conditional Use for Live Entertainment at Restaurant in Neighborhood Business Zone [timestamp: 01:00:03] **Overview** The board considered a conditional use request (C-2012-48) from David Romero to permit live entertainment at a restaurant located in a Neighborhood Business Zone. **Key Participants** The discussion involved David Romero, the applicant, along with board members and staff including Jimmy Emmons, Kay Swain, Dr. Octavio Hermida, Beth O'Donnell, and Jenny Stringer. **Outcome** The conditional use was approved by a vote of 3-1. The approval included eight conditions designed to address potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood: - Soundproofing requirements - Parking documentation - A six-month review period - A null-and-void clause that would terminate the conditional use upon transfer of ownership **Conditions of Approval** The eight conditions attached to the approval established specific operational and physical requirements for the live entertainment use. The six-month review provision allowed the board to assess the actual impact of the entertainment activity on the neighborhood before the conditional use became permanent. The null-and-void clause upon ownership transfer ensured that any future owner would need to reapply for the conditional use rather than automatically inheriting the approval. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from February 24, 2012 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from May 18, 2012 - **A-2012-45** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association's appeal for administrative review of mobile MRI facility permit - **A-2012-53** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Efren and Vladimera Alami's appeal for administrative review of drive-through facility in R-3 zone - **V-2012-54** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance for Lexington Granite Company to reduce 10-foot right-of-way setback to 0 feet for freestanding sign in I-1 zone - **CV-2012-52** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit and landscape variance for Transylvania University to build outdoor athletic facility and eliminate buffer along Coolavin Park - **C-2012-46** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Boone’s Creek Baptist Church to expand gymnasium and education building in A-R zone - **C-2012-49** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC to construct assisted living facility in P-1 zone with generator relocation condition - **C-2012-50** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Vineyard Community Church to expand worship center and parking in R-1D zone - **C-2012-51** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for RLG Investments, LLC to expand pawn shop in B-3 zone with access closure and landscape buffer conditions - **C-2012-47** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Nadia Ali Benali’s home occupation tutoring in high-density apartment zone with six-month review condition - **C-2012-48** — passed (3-1): Approval of conditional use permit for David Romero’s live entertainment at restaurant in neighborhood business zone with soundproofing, parking, and six-month review conditions --- ## Full transcript . Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. The August 24, 2012 Board of Adjustment meeting. First, I would request that everybody in the audience either turn off or silence their cell phones. And so first we will ask for approval of the February 24, 2012 and May 18, 2012 meetings. Do I have a motion for the February 2012 minutes? So moved. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? So moved. Okay. And now for the May 18th minutes. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. All right, now I'd like to sound the agenda. I will begin by asking whether there are any cases from somebody in the audience who would like to postpone or withdraw. Anyone like to postpone or withdraw their case? Madam Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page 5, the first one under Administrative Reviews, number 1, A-2012-45, Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association. I do not represent the applicant, the association. I represent the property owner, 1713 Nicholasville Road. As your agenda indicates, the association has already asked for a postponement, which we agreed to, and just thought I'd get up so you can take your vote on that if you would. Okay, thank you. So is there anyone objecting? Do we need to vote on that? I think you should. This one, it appears on your agenda because the postponement request came in after the legal ad had been in the paper. The staff will confirm the same thing that we have not only received via email the postponement request, but I've talked with the representative from the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association, and they are requesting a postponement until your September 28, 2012 meeting. Okay. All those in favor? No, Madam Chair. I'll make a motion that we postpone a 2012-45 Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association's appeal. Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Madam Chair, while we are still on page five of the agenda, staff has received an e-mail, and I also had a phone conversation with the applicant and their attorney this morning. Case A, 2012-53, Efren and Vladimir Alami, an administrative appeal request at 50502 East 7th Street has requested a one-month postponement until your September 28, 2012 meeting. The staff has no objection to this postponement. Does anyone in the audience object to a postponement? Madam Chair, I move that we postpone a 2012-53 EFRA and Valerius Alami request for administrative review. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. All right. So before we move on to sounding the agenda and calling out the individual cases, I would ask anybody who plans to testify before the board to please stand and raise your right hand. And say, do you promise to tell the truth during your testimony? I do. Thank you. So what I'll do is call the name of each case. I'd like the applicant to let me know if they're here. And if there's anyone in opposition, please let us know. So V2012-54 Lexington Granite Company. Is the applicant here? Is there anyone here in objection? Okay, next. CV2012-52 Transylvania University. Is the applicant here? Anyone here in opposition? And the next one. C-2012-46, Boones Creek Baptist Church. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. C-2012-47, Nadia Ali Bonali. Is the applicant here? Okay. Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. And C-2012-48, David Romero. Is the applicant here? Okay. Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. C-2012-49, Independent Healthcare Properties. Applicants here. Is anyone here in opposition to that? Okay. C-2012-50, Vineyard Community Church. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition to that? Okay. C-2012-51 RLG Investments LLC applicant. Is anyone here in opposition to that? Okay, so there are a number of cases in which there are opposition. What I would ask is that the applicant and the people who oppose go outside, try to talk to the parties, talk together, see if you can work out your concerns. Sometimes people just have a misunderstanding. If they talk beforehand, their concerns are laid. And otherwise, once you've talked to the applicant, if you can't work out your problems, your concerns, then we will hear anybody in opposition. So I would ask that anybody who's willing to talk to the other side just to get a better understanding, please go ahead and do so now. We will begin with the matters that there is no opposition. Then we will turn to the ones that there is opposition. Okay? Okay, so beginning with V2012-54 Lexington Granite Company. Yes, Madam Chair, what must I do now? Okay. Can you begin by stating your name for the record? I'm Bob Carter, managing partner at Luxon and Granite Company. Okay. And have you read the staff's report? Yes, I've read it. Okay. And do you understand the staff's report? Yes, I do. Okay. And the staff has recommended two conditions. Are you willing to abide by those conditions? Yes, I am. Okay. Staff, do you have any comments or questions? No further comments. Okay, Board, any questions or comments? Okay. Okay. Could you have a motion? I'll make a motion. Madam Chairman, I move approval of the 2012-54 Lexington Granite Company's appeal for a variance to reduce the required 10-foot setback from the right-of-way for a freestanding identification sign to zero feet in a light industrial zone on property located at 771 West Main Street. for the reasons that staff recommends and subject to the two conditions from the staff. Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Good luck. Thank you very much. Okay. The second case, we have CV 2012-52, Transylvania University. Madam Chair, as the applicant is sitting up, the staff has received one letter from the Neighborhood Association in support of this application. I'll pass it out to you. It's the same letter but multiple copies for the board. I'd like to state your name for the record. Madam Chair, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Transylvania University. And with me is Mark Matthews, who's the Vice President for Finance and Business of Transylvania. And Peter Fisher is with us in the back from Ross Turrent Architects as well, who's the designer of this, along with Sasaki Associates out of Boston. And we have read the recommendation to agree with the staff conditions. There are two items I needed to clarify. One is that I talked to Mr. Emmons about these this morning. We are investigating the possibility of seeing if we can move a 30-inch sewer force main, which is on the property. And if we can, it will necessitate moving the buildings and facilities around a little bit. And condition number one deals with that, and we're just clarifying that the track itself constitutes a paved area under that condition so that we could move portions of the track if we needed to, if we could move that 30-inch force mate. And the other clarification was on the site plan. We mislabeled a fence. The fence along 4th Street will be an ornamental fence. We're not sure of what material we'll be using along the other three sides. At the Landscape Review Committee, we discussed the possibility that it might be a coated chain-link fence, which would be coated with a dark color so that it disappears from your line of vision so you can see through it on there. But we just wanted to clarify that as well. It also gives a little flexibility along that back line to move the fence around for the trees back there. So with those two clarifications, we request your approval and do agree to the staff conditions. Do you think we need to do anything to change the language? Madam Chair, the staff did intend, under our condition number one, that paved areas include the track. So that was part of our recommendation. I might ask Mr. Emmons to comment on the fence. And as far as the fencing goes, this does not require any change in the language that's before you on your agenda or in the staff report, but it is nice to get that clarification since what they wanted to do was slightly different than what was on the site plan. But it is keeping an open vista in the type of fence was important to the Landscape Review Committee and the staff as a part of the justification for the variance. Jimmy, if I make a motion, I'd like to change the conditions to include and paved areas in Condition 1, including the track. Okay. Would that be all right? That's fine. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Madam Chair, I'd like to move that CV 2012-52 Transylvania University's appeal for conditional use permit to provide an outdoor athletic facility accessory to a church-related school for academic instruction in a light industrial zone and a variance to eliminate the required landscape buffer zone screening along Kulavan Park on properties located at 523, 551, and 555 West 4th Street be approved based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the four conditions with the first condition modified to include the track as part of the paved areas. I'll second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, next I would like to call C2012-46, Boones Creek Baptist Church. Would you like to state your name for the record, please? John Davidson. Okay, and have you read the staff's report? I have. And do you understand the staff's report? I have. Okay. And the staff has recommended five conditions. Do you understand those conditions? Mm-hmm. Are you willing to abide by those conditions? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Do you have any questions? Staff? No further comments. Board? I have a question. On your flat, it looks like the addition, the gym and classrooms, It looks like it goes over the parcel boundary line. I think you own the property on the other side. You have multiple tracks. Yeah, there's two tracks there. Yeah, we own all that. That's 23 acres total. Well, then maybe I have a question for staff. Mr. Greggs, they do have two parcels, but the lot line that you're seeing has previously been consolidated, so this building will not be going across that lot line. So the two parcels are consolidated. The church originally had three parcels, and it's been consolidated into two. So there is a small lot that is up at the corner of Athens and Democrat Boulevard as it comes in that the board has approved of, most recently approved, a little parking lot expansion. That's the area that you see in kind of grayed out on the site plan. But the lot line that shows on that site plan has been consolidated. the applicants used the last site plan as their starting point for this site plan. So this addition does not go across the property line? It does not go across the property line. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2012-46 Boones Creek Baptist Church appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the church, gymnasium, and education building in the agricultural rural zone on properties located at 173 and 185 North Cleveland Road as recommended by staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. I'll second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Yeah, there's two. We can skip these two. Yeah, this one I thought. Mr. Chairman, while we've got a short break, the staff forgot to mention, there is a new requirement for the conditional uses to have a sign posted on the property, and I would just like to say that on August 10th, the staff did go out and place a sign for, as required by the ordinance, on all of our conditional uses that are on the agenda today. Okay. That includes the ones that have already been acted on and all of the rest to go on the agenda. Okay. So you're right. I think we would go to independent. Okay. I believe C2012-49 Independent Healthcare Properties LLC, there was no opposition to that. Is that correct? Okay. I'd like to come forward. Hi, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of Independent Health Care Properties, LLC. We're in agreement with the conditions. You've read Understand the Report? I do. We do. The staff did receive one letter in opposition to this. I'll pass it out to the board now. While we're looking at the letter, does anyone have any questions, comments? I do have a question. Okay. Go ahead. This is a question for staff first. Jimmy, on the notification to the neighborhood, these homes along the side where the generator is? Yes. They were certainly all notified. They're on the property boundary. All of those property owners did receive notice. This was subject to the new 500-foot requirement for notice, and they, along with the neighborhood associations, did receive a notice of this property. When they get noticed, do they get this plat, the same one that we've got in front of us? Yes, they've got a reduced version, an 8.5 by 11. So this drawing on an 8.5 by 11 with the same size type? I believe it was just simply reduced. I believe the whole thing was reduced down. Well, I guess what I'm getting to is this generator in the corner seems so insignificant that on an 8.5 by 11 it would be as well. And I don't know that I'd have even paid attention to it if you hadn't brought up the concerns in the staff report. So my worry is that these neighbors that receive notice might be unaware of that generator. And I'm thinking that it's a pretty big deal, and I understand the applicant's desire to put it there because it's the least expensive place to locate it. But since it's just an electrical device, it could be put anywhere on the property. The staff was, whenever I got this application, I was unaware that it had already been looked at and detailed by the planning commission. So I looked at it with fresh eyes whenever I first got this application in. And we also had concerns about the proximity of the generator to that subject property. As I was reviewing this application for their Board of Adjustment Conditional Use Appeal, it became apparent that it was detailed in great detail at the time of the Planning Commission. And they are, in essence, installing two fences with a landscape buffer. And there will also be notes that... If we can show the note on that bill. I'll just pull it down. There will also be notes that restrict the time and testing of this type of equipment. We also have gotten the specifications on the type of equipment and the soundproofing casing that will be put over top of it, which will bring it down to about 72 decibel levels, which in previous research on other cases is about the sound of running a lawnmower. So with all of these other restrictions that will be on the development plan for this property, we felt confident that the negative effects of having this generator in that current location would be mitigated. And so the staff felt comfortable relying on the work that the Planning Commission had done. Jimmy, here's a question for you. If this was your house at 413 Shoreside Drive, how would you feel about it? I would actually not be upset about it. I live in a downtown neighborhood. Well, I can tell you that if this was my house, I'd be very upset about it, especially given the alternatives that exist on a site this size. So maybe the applicant would like to express whether there's some flexibility here. Well, your comment about it is in line with the other electric lines, and that's the convenience of it. But it also follows the same trench as that, and it has to enter the building, basically. I mean, it serves basically as the transformer during emergency events. The only time it would be operated is during a power outage because of the nature of the use. I thought it was being tested for a half hour every week. Well, yeah, that would be the testing. Its use is only during the power outage, but it is tested to make sure it's on operations and to keep it operating once a week. And that time is flexible. It's on a programmed, it starts up automatically once a week. Is it once a week or once a month? Week? Yeah. It's weekly. And what we did was we restricted it by a specific time so that it wouldn't run before 9 during the lunch hour or after 5. So that it would, you know, we kind of picked those times when typically people would not be at home as frequently or using their yard per se. But it is effectively the sound of a leaf blower or a lawnmower. I use ear protection when I use a leaf blower or a lawnmower. I think it's pretty loud. And I think that this property owner will be, I don't want to be too extreme, but somewhat victimized by this, and it will affect their property value. And especially given the flexibility of electrical equipment, you can condu in and condu out of it, conduit out of it, to any place on the property. And it's just being put here out of convenience and a cost savings for a for-profit company. Well, your comment about wearing the earplugs, yes, you're at the source, too. So, I mean, it is louder at the source. But we explored various locations to put it, and this seemed to be about the best place to have it located. I have the same concerns. What other alternative locations did you consider, just for my education? Because, you know, I wouldn't want to, if I were that homeowner at 413, Shoreside Drive, I'd be concerned I'd even be here. But in their absence, you know. The placement is, well, why don't I ask the contractor to come up and talk about how it gets placed. And that was a consideration because it has to come in on a crane. If it ever has to be replaced, it has to be replaced with a crane. So let me chat with him. Sure. There's a six-foot solid fence along that property line plan, but I don't know what that looks like. I wonder if the staff has pictures or photographs. Well, solid fence no doubt means wood plank. Yeah, and that's not going to be a noise reduction. No, and if you were to pour a concrete wall around it and maybe put a roof on it, you could mitigate that. Or maybe some kind of landscaping. I don't know why it couldn't be. See, this is LFUCG. Sorry, this is the Kentucky American Water Company over here. There's nothing over here. There's nothing on the Richmond Road side. So they've got these two huge boundaries. Right. And the lot is, you know, he's saying that you need a crane to move it around, but there are cranes that can go across turf. Turf. Do you have any opinion about this? These people, their house ends right here, and then that's their back patio. That's where they live. Were the neighbors at the Planning Commission meeting? Do you know? They were not. It did not involve a zone change or any notification to the next. So it was just a development plan? That's correct. The location was selected based primarily on placement from the street with a crane. It has proximity to the electric transformer because it's following the same line. It also, with proximity to natural gas, is what feeds the generator. And if we push it closer to our building, because our building sits below the street at that location, the transformer, I'm sorry, the generator, it's a hillside between the generator and our building, because our building sits below the house there on the corner. We could consider moving it to the dumpster location. Because we've got a large retention base in there, we've got significant growth. Hi, I'm Paul Schartz here, you're watching Heart of Gold. Our guests tonight are from Amache, Central Kentucky, Michael Jackson, who is the recruitment coordinator for your mentors and mentees, and Anthony Scott. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Michael, tell us the overall story of Amachi. Some people don't know what it is. I would imagine a lot of people don't know what it is. So tell the story. Amachi means who knows but what God has brought us through this child. It's a Nigerian Igbo word. But basically, Amachi Central Kentucky is an initiative of the Lexington Leadership Foundation where it's a mentoring program for children between the ages of 4 and 18 who have one of both parents in jail or prison. Any other questions? So would you be willing to do that if the board is? Yeah, we've offered that as an alternate location, not at great cost and not where we desire it to be, obviously. We would have put it there initially. but to move beyond that, we'll agree to that. Okay. We're putting up a proposed condition on the board. It'll say that the generator shall be relocated to the dumpster area shown on the site plan. Well, if that's the case, I'd like to compliment the applicant for their flexibility. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any motions? Madam Chair, I recommend approval of C. 2012-49 Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC, for a conditional use permit to construct and occupy an assisted living facility in a professional office zone on property located at 150 Shore Side Drive for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the five conditions that we've listed up there on the monitor. I'll second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, next I'd like to call C2012-50, the Vineyard Community Church. Please state your name for the record. Madam Chair, I'm Jay Million of Million Architecture, PLLC, and we represent the Vineyard Community Church. Okay. And have you read the staff's report? We have. Do you understand the staff's report? Yes, we do. Okay. And did you read the two conditions that the staff has recommended? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And are you willing to abide by those conditions? Yes, we are. Okay. Any comments or questions? Staff has no further comment. Board? Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2012-50 Vineyard Community Church as appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the church, worship center, and gathering space and parking area in a single-family residential zone on property located at 1881 Eastland Parkway, as recommended by staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Next, I'd like to call C-2012-51, RLG Investments, LLC. Madam Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jason Banks with Banks Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We have read staff's comments and are in agreement with them and would request approval. The staff would just like to point out I put up on our site plan, up on the screen, the revised site plan that the staff has received from the applicant, which addresses some of the conditions of approval. Staff is still recommending approval subject to the conditions on there. I just wanted to let you know that they have responded to our conditions already. So the revised site plan that is one of the conditions is that site plan? Yes. On the original site plan, it just showed all of the existing pavement area without any delineation of what type of parking can be put on the subject property. Also, during our review, we noticed that there was a need for additional landscaping, a need for some of the asphalt that's currently on the property to be pulled up and landscaping to be put in to be compliant with Article 18. The applicants are demonstrating that they're going to do that. The staff would still recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and on the agenda. Any questions? Motions? Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we approve C-2012-51 RLG Investments' appeal for a conditional use permit to expand an existing pawn shop in a highway service business zone on property located at 212 East New Circle Road based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions. All those in favor? Oh, sorry, second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Okay. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. So I believe that brings us now to C2012-47, Nadia Ali Benali. If you'll give the staff just a moment, we can prepare a short presentation. Okay, so since there is opposition, we are going to go ahead and let the staff make a brief report. Okay, I think we may be able to save you some time. Oh, okay. I think that we've pretty much come to an agreement that is amicable between us. I just have one question. Okay, please state your name for the record. I'm sorry, my name is Ashley Deshawn. I'm the president of the Homeowners Association for Lake Crossing, which is the neighborhood. We've had neighbors have several complaints. I think that we've worked that out between us to rectify that situation. I'm not sure that we want to oppose anymore. I just would like to know what recourse we have, if there is a situation where the neighbors become unhappy and we can't work it out. Okay. Do you want to respond to that? Not knowing exactly what has worked out between the Neighborhood Association and the applicant at this point, you know the staff is always in favor of neighbors working things out. I believe that the main thing that we need to hear is what has been worked out, determine whether it's something that can or cannot also be enforced by the government as a condition of the conditional use. The staff is prepared to do whatever sort of presentation, whether we want to talk about what's conspired here recently or whether you want me to give an overview. I'm willing to do whatever the board is ready. If you want to explain what it is that your concern was and what you have proposed, how you proposed to reach this agreement, then we can do that. Well, we've talked about it, and I think it may have even said on here they've agreed to have one vehicle drop their students off. I feel like that would be okay with us. We've talked about them instructing their students not to use the neighbor's driveways as turnaround. That's another complaint that seems like we can rectify. I can't, I guess, tell you every complaint that someone might come up with. I just wondered if for some reason that they can come up with a valid complaint, that they can convince someone else is valid, is there a chance that the conditional use appeal could be revoked or changed if something else becomes an issue that, or what could make it an issue for you to change your mind or revoke this appeal, or can it be revoked? The board, certainly if this application were approved subject to the conditions listed and as recommended by the staff, If there were violations of those conditions, our zoning enforcement section could bring this case back to the Board of Adjustment for a revocation hearing at any time that they feel that the conditions of approval are not being adhered to. It gets into a little bit of a different situation. if new complaints come up that are not covered by the conditions that are listed on the agenda that the board would be doing, because if they are following the conditions of the Board of Adjustment, the board really wouldn't have a reason to do that. Another possibility that the applicant and the board could consider is that oftentimes with uses like this, You've asked for just either a six-month or a one-year review to ask our zoning enforcement to see if we have received any complaints on this type of. So, I mean, one of the reasons that is given for granting the conditional permit is that it shall not adversely affect the surrounding property. If there was a six-month or 12-month review at that point in time, if there was something other than these conditions, we could talk about whether it was adversely affecting the neighborhood. So right now, if it turns out that they're using more than one car, then that would be a reason to revoke the condition. If the applicant is willing to agree and a condition is that drivers will not use neighboring driveways for turnaround points, that would be a reason to revoke the condition. Otherwise, if you think, well, something might happen that we don't like, we can't revoke it for that. But if you come and it really does appear to have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, then at that point in time, my understanding is we could revoke it. Is that correct? Yes. And our zoning enforcement staff, if at any time, just like any conditional use that comes before you, if they feel that the applicant is not complying with the conditions and they're not willing to correct that, our zoning enforcement staff can bring back a revocation of any conditional use that the board has previously approved. For the record, I don't want to muddy the waters, but we did receive seven letters of opposition that I could pass out to the board while you're deliberating. I'd like to add one thing, and that is that in these four conditions, there is nothing that says that the students can't turn around in neighbors' driveways. That would be very hard to enforce. The way to do it would be for the applicant to advise their clients to try not to do that. It would be very hard to enforce. I guess she has agreed to tell her students, as long as that happens, I would withdraw my objection. but you're saying that would be hard to enforce. I just think it's wonderful that you all are working it out, and it ought to be fine. Because, I mean, I can tell the parents not to do that, but I'm inside teaching. I'm not going to be at the same time as, you know what I mean. My name is Ashraf. I am Nadia's husband. We applied for this business in 2000 with the SBA, and they told us we have to pay tax for the Lexington County urban government. and we do that. And they also told us we have to pay tax or send a copy to the school, the education, Board of Education, and we do that. And we did not know that we cannot have more than one car. But we are willing to comply with this rule, and actually we did, starting July, because that's when we were told. And we will do everything, every effort, like this turning around, we will make sure to tell the students that they can go around, which is probably safer anyway. and we're willing to follow the board's recommendation on this and we're thankful that our neighbors come to the understanding i guess the only thing that else that i would have to say is i really would like for you to look at the letters um from the other neighbors i feel like personally i don't have any more objections i feel like we can work it out but there are are neighbors that have complaints that I think that you should at least look at. I'm surprised. Some of them just want to be very happy with the teachers, you know? I guess that's kind of how I feel. I'm just covering myself because if they're unhappy, they have the information. Exactly, exactly. If they're unhappy. I personally don't have any projects. Yes, because myself, I'm ready to answer, you know, to talk about these propositions. But you don't know what, you know, what you might answer. and then I will have to help my... because I was... I'm not going to be satisfied with you. I'm not going to be satisfied with that. I guess the letters... Thank you. If you walk down the middle of the street, you walk into my house. So in the past, have you had a large number of students at the same time? We have had more than one car coming and bringing more than one student, yes, because we do not know this rule. But now since we started this process in July, we have already informed our clients that they should not come, and we arranged the schedule. We actually have a couple of the schedule. Have you noticed a difference? Unfortunately, I live on the other side of the neighborhood. I've received complaints from our neighbors, but I'm not sure that they were speaking to what is currently happening but what has happened in the past. I'd like to also add that we have nine students. They are all not in the same level. So the idea that we have a lot of traffic is... I have a schedule. We have only nine students. I'm sorry. So I put a schedule, especially on Saturday, because the kids are off from school, you know, so I have more students on Saturdays. But on the weekdays, mostly my classes are online. So I have just two kids who come in one car, you know, they are siblings, and I don't see this congestion that they are talking about, you know. So there should be at most two cars, the parent picking up and the parent dropping off. That is correct. Yes. It is overlapping for a few minutes. Sometimes the dad, you know, drop them, and then the mom comes to get them. Thank you. I'm interested in, I don't understand the condition number three. I've heard everything that's been said, but I'm still not sure I understand what that means. Students shall be limited to one at a time. I don't know what that means. That would just mean that in her tutoring, that it would be one-on-one tutoring. But in their application, they did point out that some of their students are siblings, and they would come together in the same car and have the same impact on the neighborhood as if it were one-on-one tutoring. This condition number three was intended to ensure that it's not a classroom setting for the tutoring and that it is more individual instruction as it comes along. But their application did point out that they have some of her students are siblings, and they do have some that are neighbors that would arrive in one car. And the staff agreed with the applicant that that would have the same impact on the neighborhood as if it were a single student one at a time for this particular use, but we were trying to avoid a classroom setting for this. May I ask another question? Sure. Are we setting any precedent if we allow this permit? I would say that the board is not setting any more precedent than it would be for any other home occupation use, such as sewing and music instruction, other tutors in the neighborhood. Would someone else who was doing that have to apply for the same permit? Would we have the option to object, or now that if you allow this, would you just allow that? Every case that comes before the board has to be justified on its own merits. We do review each case individually. That's part of the reason why certain uses are conditional uses, so that we can look at them individually and see if there is any need to tailor the situation to the property. Nearly all of these letters are based about traffic and safety concerns. There's one that talks a little bit about the upkeep of the house, the front yard, and mowing the grass and a mattress that was left for a month and that kind of thing. So I'm inclined to approve this with a six-month review. And if the traffic problems are still bad in six months, then I would consider that they haven't. I would certainly withdraw my personal objection if you would agree to the review. I think that we, as neighbors, we can work it out. That's the way I'm leaning. And a six-month review should be no problem if you keep the traffic problems under control. We just would like to note that when we bought our house, it was a foreclosure. And these are a couple of pictures from our house now. It is possible that the reference to the yard being too much and that the city was informed about the condition of the house was to the house before we bought it. But since we bought it, we take care of our house, and we love our house. This is our first house. May I suggest on a six-month review that it be the type of review that the staff will report on? And rather than notifying all 500 people again, I mean all people within the 500-foot radius, it seems like it might be appropriate to notify the applicant and the homeowners association that are here today about that meeting. Okay, and the homeowners association can let the neighborhood know? We will do it. Okay. We'll draft up a fifth condition very quickly. Okay, thank you. So they're working on an additional condition. Thank you. Thank you. You can stay. The applicant, you can sit down, but the applicant can stay if you like until we're done. You can wait right here while we work on the condition, and then when we're done, you can go over and talk to them. We will be putting up a proposed condition on the board. The fifth condition would read that the board shall review this application in six months with notice to the neighborhood association. And the applicant. And the applicant. And I'm good. That's actually part of the, we understand that that will be part of the normal procedures on a six-month review is to let the applicant know also. Okay. Is that okay? Okay. So are you willing to abide that you've read and understand the report and the four, now five conditions? Yes. Okay. Anyone make a motion? Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2012-47 Nadia Ali Ben Ali's appeal for a conditional use permit for a home occupation tutoring in a high-density apartment zone on property located at 368 Shoreside Drive as recommended by staff and subject to the now five conditions as recommended by staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay. All right. Passes. Good luck. Thank you. Good luck to you. Okay. Now I'd like to call C-2012-48, David Romero. Good afternoon. Okay. So I guess we have some opposition. Do we still have opposition to this? Okay. So what I guess I'd like to do is ask the staff to make a brief presentation. Okay. And can you just state your name for the records? My name is David Romero. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This case is located on your agenda on page 3, case C, 2012-48 for David Romero. This is a conditional use request for a live entertainment for a property at 4379 Old Harrodsburg Road. And I can get the site plans put up on Elmo in just a minute. Sorry about that. 4379 Harrisburg Road. It's actually located off of Old Harrisburg Road. It's near the Bowman Mill shoot-off. It's in an area ever since the Harrisburg Road widening project has occurred. This property is basically at the corner of Harrisburg Road and Military Pike, does that make sense? It sits down in there. A lot of people know this site from the Ramsey's use, which is down in the neighborhood business area. The subject property is for a complete property. It is completely built out. There is a building right in the center of the property. If we can show the aerial photography now. As you can see, this shopping center is completely built out. It's actually well designed for live entertainment and use in the center of the property with the additional commercial buildings. that will provide a buffer to the Palomar neighborhood, and there is also a church and a vacant yet undeveloped piece of property adjacent to here. The applicants are proposing to use two of the three units in this middle building for their live entertainment. Previously, this site was the home to another case that the Board of Adjustment has looked at. There was a wine and spirit store there, and the Board had previously approved for a live entertainment on the patio area out in front of there. You had a condition at that time that that outdoor entertainment be unamplified. The applicants now are proposing a restaurant with a live entertainment that will allow amplified music inside the building. They say that they'll have a stage that could hold a band of up to about eight people. And they are also requesting, it was not clear in their application, but the staff made it, we clarified it with the applicant, that would also allow them the ability to continue on the use with the unamplified music for the patio area out front. The staff felt that that was inappropriate. As long as it was unamplified, it was appropriate to allow that use to carry forward from the previous use. Is the unamplified, I'm sorry, is the patio that quiet area that we're looking at? Yes. If we can show the next aerial photograph. I zoomed in on the middle building, and you can see from the roof line that there's essentially three units, one, two, three. The applicants are going to take the middle unit and over here for their restaurant. And so this area here, which is currently pavement, would be the area for the patio. Jimmy, how long was the previous user in place, and were there complaints with the patio music from the wine shop? There were no complaints, but I do not know how long the wine shop was in operation. I do know that the board had asked for, whenever you approved that, you had asked for a one-year review of that use. and in the minutes of your one-year approval, you found that there was no complaints that were issued for that use after it had been in operation for a year. But I do not know when they vacated the use. The applicant might have that information. This is the gentleman who does the lease on his five years. They can answer that question during their time. The staff in reviewing this felt that this proposed use was adequately buffered. We did feel that a restaurant with live entertainment and dancing at this location would be appropriate and that all of our necessary public services were available for this use. The staff recommended approval subject to five conditions. Condition number five is a little bit out of the ordinary, And that's documentation that there is enough available parking during the hours of operation to meet the minimum required parking. This site is under the provisions of a development plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. And if you look at that site plan, that site plan has a total of 30 additional parking spaces over the minimum requirement. However, the only restaurant that is noted on there is the Ramsey's Restaurant. and restaurants have a higher parking requirement than just a general retail use. We know that from just being at that location that there is, in addition to Ramsey's, there is a restaurant that serves breakfast and lunch. There is also a Mexican restaurant and now the proposed third restaurant. Obviously, I believe that this use will not have a lot of overlap, especially in the hours of the live entertainment with the restaurant that serves breakfast and lunch. But we feel that we needed to, since the parking could be tight on the subject property, we want to make sure that we document that this use will be able to meet their required parking prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit for it. So you're looking around that shopping center for intensive nighttime uses, and you're noticing restaurants as a primary concern. But is Actors Guild still renting out there? I do not know. Yes, it is. So Actors Guild has got on, not frequently, but sometimes they would have probably 100 people in there for their shows in the evenings. How would the applicant document adequate parking? By showing their hours of operation with the other hours of operation with the other users in there and be able to account for that they will be able to meet their required parking. And the reason why the staff is worried is because restaurants have a parking generator that is higher than general retail, and in particular restaurants with live entertainment have even a slightly higher parking generator on that. I do feel confident that given the entire shopping center site, if we can go back and zoom out on the area. The previous area, there we go. If you look at this entire site, it does appear that there is ample parking available. for the entire site. And oftentimes, you mentioned things like the Actors Guild, you can get a lot of people that would want to come to a restaurant and the Actors Guild and things of that nature at the same time. And it doesn't sound like that's the type of use that would be a constant, but whenever they do have something going, it would be a high parking generator right at that time. The parking spaces in this shopping center are generally not parceled out, which is a good thing. They're not particularly marked so that these parking spaces are for this tenant, these parking spaces are for that tenant. That gives a lot of flexibility to somebody who is looking for a parking space to find a parking space somewhere in the shopping center. And on this aerial, you can see on the left-hand side towards Bowmansville Road, there's a large parking lot there that doesn't have a lot of cars in it, at least at the time the aerial photo was taken. So I do feel confident that they will be able to meet their required parking. but prior to us issuing the zoning compliance permit, we want to make sure that the applicant has accounted for his parking spaces in conjunction with all of the other uses that are on the site. Does that make sense? I guess my question is how does he do that? I mean, is he going to have to go to the other establishments and say, what are your hours of operation and how many people park? No. Generally, if the applicant were to be sitting down at the table with the staff trying to get the zoning compliance permit, we would pull out the development plan that has all of the buildings. We'd go through what all of the different uses are, and we would look at their hours of operation for those uses and then create a table that accounts for all of the parking for all of the uses. It's the type of thing that we are actually used to doing. Whenever somebody comes in for a zoning compliance permit in a shopping center like this, and we have to sit down and do all of this stuff, I was bringing that to the board's attention because it was an out-of-the-ordinary condition for you to see on the agenda. So this is something that you're going to work with the applicant on, and he's not going to have to go seek out the other establishment owners in the shopping center. And in this day and age, typically if there's a question about a business's hours, we can just pull it up on Google on the Internet, and most businesses have websites now that kind of say what their hours are. That's been a wonderful tool for us as we've been sitting down trying to do these types of calculations. in the past. They would have to go through this whether they were coming in front of the board or not. If they were simply a restaurant seeking a zoning compliance permit, the staff would sit down and go through this exact same exercise. At this point, we have not done that, hence the reason for the condition. That concludes the staff presentation. If there are any other questions for me or any other member of the staff, we'll be available throughout the hearing. Thank you. Do you have anything you want to bring to our attention before we give the opposition an opportunity to speak? Other than based on what information or the presentation, I've already had a meeting, and I'm not sure if this exactly applies to what he was referring to, but we've had a meeting with all the restaurant owners, El Charro's, which is a New Mexican restaurant, and Rob Ramsey, and kind of formulated a plan, which we plan on implementing into our standard operating procedures for employee parking and for trying to accommodate the restaurants and making sure that the best parking is available to the customers and what have you. So just something that I thought I'd bring to your attention. Okay, thank you. All right, so we'll now give the opposition an opportunity to talk. Please begin by stating your name for the record. My name is Kay Swain, and I'm a resident of the Palomar subdivision that backs up to the shopping center. Okay, Madam Chairman and members of the board, thank you for letting me speak today. My concern is that an establishment that really is fairly close to a lot of homes offering live entertainment and dancing would disrupt the character of the area. the noise is certainly a factor not only the noise inside the establishment but what would be happening outside of the establishment with patrons the parking lot there is practically empty but in the evening I know that it's a lot more crowded than that, just mostly from Ramsey's. And that would be competing, I think, with the restaurant parking. And even at that, we still have people that come into our subdivision, which you can see. I don't have any kind of a laser beam to point, but there's a fire gate that separates. There's a fire gate right here that separates our subdivision from the shopping center. And people will come and park along this area to go to some of the restaurants just because. I don't know whether they don't think it's very accessible from Harrodsburg Road or what. I'm concerned because I live alongside this street, and I am concerned with loud noise at night that would be disruptive. As far as an adequate barrier, I'm not really sure what constitutes an adequate or a well-buffered area is how it was pronounced, but there's only a small fence here, and there is a retaining wall here, and that's it. so I do have concerns about the noise also about the parking in our neighborhood which I think would be hard to control by the owner it would probably be up to the residents to have to control that if it became a problem but regards to the music permit given to the wine store which was there maybe a couple of years I don't even remember them having any music on the patio, to be quite honest. And they were only open until maybe 10 o'clock at night, not 1 o'clock in the morning. And I think that's quite a bit different of a time frame to be concerned about. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone have... Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Octavio Hermida. I live right into one of the residences right behind the development there. I'm very familiar with the development itself because when we first met with the developer, we told him that he was, and we agreed, that there will not be any kind of loud entertainment that will occur and that most of the businesses that will come into place will be actually professionals and what have you. This was an agreement that we had initially before the development took place. That's the reason why we require that wall to be placed behind the development and the residences. my home or my wife's and my home is one of the three residences that we ask that a wall be placed so that it will actually keep away noise and people that will be coming right through the neighborhood and what have you even though the gentleman here made a statement saying that there's enough parking. There is not enough parking. I walk my dog every morning and every evening. On Saturdays, the whole place, Saturdays and Sundays, the whole place is very full with Ramses mostly. And when the Actors Guild has a show, there are more than probably 50 to 100 cars in there, and so the whole parking area. Some people come on our subdivision and park their cars in there in order to have easier access to the Actors Guild or Ramses. Our objection is basically having to do with the loud music. and I know that the development now the person that initially developed filled bankruptcy and that the development is now being taken over by the lender and therefore of course they're trying to fill up the gap on the unused places that are really not occupied right now and they're trying to bring in there any kind of business as they can in order to be able to fill that gap. So we understand all of this. The problem is going to be the people, the kind of individuals that come in there to party at night and to park their business, to entertain themselves until wee hours of the morning and the music, even though supposedly the place has been rehabbed with enough acoustic that we were told that we would not hear any kind of music. Even with that, even at that, even though we live that far from Harrisburg Road, there are wee hours in the morning when we can hear the cars racing and the motorcycles racing. So I don't know how they're going to completely keep from all the music and entertainment happening in the wee hours of the morning to keep it completely quiet and the type of patrons that are going to come in there, especially to dance, to drink, and what have you. And sometimes we find in our development, we find a lot of bottled beers and everything else of teenagers that go through the development. So I don't know how all of this is going to take place. And that's basically our main objection about the kind of music and the type of entertainment that's going to take place, especially on the weekends when they have the football games and so forth. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Beth O'Donnell, and I live at 4340 Gumtree. If you look at the map, I don't have the pointer. I don't know if you have a pointer. My home is beyond the end of the wall. And you can see there's just a narrow strip of land between me and the back of the shopping area. I think the people who talked before me have stated some of the concerns we have, and I may have a couple more in addition as well as just to enlarge my concerns built on what they had already stated. Certainly the noise is an issue. I mean, as I understand the petition for use, they're going to have amplified music inside and unamplified music on the outside of the building. and to me, as the gentleman before me stated, we can clearly hear the traffic on Harrodsburg Road and you know how, especially the bass notes, if you've ever been at a stoplight with a car next to you or even somewhere back in line behind you, you can clearly hear that sound. So if it's amplified inside, I don't think that wall will even begin to stop that noise. Parking is a big issue. As they've already pointed out, the gate there at the end, people come down there and park. And one of my concerns is because this is an establishment that's going to be going to 1 a.m. and it's going to have dancing as well as bands, that the type of people who are attracted to that may increase not only the traffic and parking, in our neighborhood street that we moved to because it was quiet, but speed down that street or speed up that street and endanger kids who might be on the street or pets that might be being walked or whatever. So we're talking early. It's a combination of things. Early hours, bands, dancing, it's a big leap from that to having a little wine and cheese tasting party with a guitarist who's not amplifying his music. So the prior use, I think, is not a good indicator of what we're talking about here. and in addition to that I'm also concerned that people might start congregating near it in the parking lot I mean individuals and groups congregating there near the area because they take their drink out and they're dancing and they're hearing the music and that just might create an atmosphere of people who decide well, let's go over to the neighborhood and check that out, see what's going on there. I just don't like the whole shift, the paradigm shift of what we're looking at. As the gentleman before me indicated, we were assured at the time that the place was expanded that it would be the types of shops that would not create this kind of change in the character of our neighborhood. and I'm also worried about property values and whether the proximity to a place that offers live music and dancing, including amplified music within the establishment, is just going to say, well, you have a nice home, but I drove around and I don't like what I see right near. also I'm concerned that in a subsequent period of time the individual might ask for amplification of the music that's out on the patio area and that would just up the ante further so I guess that's sort of where my concerns are at I certainly hope at the very least that you not make a decision today, if at all possible. I'm not sure who all was notified, if it was only the people in the neighborhood immediately adjacent, whether the church might have been noticed up on this. So I would hope at the very least, well, my first hope would be that you turned down the petition. But if that feels uncomfortable to you at this point in time, that you continue it, have another hearing, re-notice it, and perhaps broaden the notice, and make sure that we're not doing something that would be difficult to unwind once it's there. Thank you. I appreciate very much. I ask you a question. I'm a little unclear about that fire gate. Is that closed unless you're an emergency vehicle? Yes. But have you found that vehicles that are heading, that are, are people parking on your street and then coming across that fire gate? Because it's quite close. You know, this is the gate, and people park here and up there. and then they just walk because the sidewalk is not closed off. What's closed off is the street. Now, it's supposed to only be available for emergency vehicles, as I understand it from the hearing that originally expanded the shopping area. But I have gone down there once or twice when I walked early in the morning instead of later at night and found that someone had somehow caused the gate to come open. I don't know if they used a vehicle or used something to break the lock or whatever, and I phoned the neighborhood association and it was subsequently fixed. Now, that hasn't happened recently, but that could be a concern, too, that someone just jammed their way through the gate if they were intoxicated and sort of had impaired their judgment. Well, it is troublesome to me that the shopping center parking is going on on your neighborhood street, and I can see that it would happen. I've attended a few Actors Guild productions and found the parking is extremely tight in there. Sometimes you have to park at the far end of the – I mean, it fills up. There's no doubt about it. Yes, and this would, of course, quite clearly expand. And you understand that Jimmy was talking about a review of the parking requirements based on this new restaurant's needs, and hopefully that exercise would, if it found parking to be inadequate, they would not get a permit to do this. But would they in the meantime be able to open their establishments? No, it would be before they develop the restaurant. I see. I think that's the way I would understand it. So they've got another hurdle to jump through, and I think it might be a big one. Is that correct, Jimmy? I just wanted to clarify that a restaurant by itself is an allowable use in this zone, and they could come in and get a permit for a restaurant without the live entertainment and dancing. It's the live entertainment and dancing that's before the board. Well, I think that's part of the concern. I mean, it's not just a restaurant. You're going to draw some people who are coming there for the band and for the dancing, and I think that expands the use. And if I remember correctly, the gentleman who's Mr. Romero, the name of his company is something like SEC, and the C stands for concerts. So, I mean, we all know that concerts draw bigger crowds than a mere restaurant use. Thank you. thank you are there any other people in opposition that want to speak okay thank you my name is Jenny Stringer my address is 4420 Old Schoolhouse Lane which if he wants to back up the aerial. You can see me on, I live in a historic property. Right there you can see a little bit of light area close to the end of that pin. And also there's a neighbor to us across the creek here on the same side of the road. They could not be here today. You may have correspondence from them. I wouldn't know. We've been there since 1983. and I'd rather not speak today in terms of being here. We've seen a lot of change. But parking is not my main concern. I'd just like you to listen and try to listen to the neighborhood and the folks who spoke today. Very legitimate concerns. We've got kind of a little, Ramsey says a terrific business going down there, but by 9 or 10 o'clock they're pretty much emptied out and this is a whole other page for our neighborhood and to better understand we just at least need some time to better understand what would be involved with this we know Ramsey's and we know that it's 9, 10 o'clock, like I said. And it's a family place. That's what I think. As far as the buffering, we have a great concern. We can't at this point stand on the front porch and tell our guests goodbye because the noise is so heavy off of Now, that's not why we're here today, but in addition to that, we get some noise from all the things that are down there because it funnels up that creek bed right up the hill to us. So parking isn't my main issue with this particular conditional use, but I come in opposition. Do you have any question for me? We never knew the wine shop was there, really. It was very quiet and low-key. Thank you. Okay, do you have anything you want to say in response to the neighbors' objections? First of all, I would really like to thank everybody for coming out today and expressing their concerns. We spoke a little bit in the hallway and absorbed some of the things that they were concerned about, and all of them are legitimate concerns. I mean, I have a family. I have a one-and-a-half-year-old daughter, and I have one on the way in September, And I truly understand that safety and property value, all these things are important. And but the thing that I the picture that was painted that I'd like to clarify is that the unsavory folks that will be coming through to patronize this establishment. And I'd like to point out, and I even have pictures to illustrate it, this will be the nicest restaurant within, I don't know, I'd guesstimate five miles. So we're not talking about a honky-tonk or a hip-hop club or anything like that. And to clarify another thing before I finish that thought is the restaurant is opening. We're not here to open the restaurant. We're here just to say, can we have live music? so have you gotten approval for parking with respect to the restaurant do you know um that was something i'd have to yes yes ma'am yes ma'am i'm i'm not an expert on all the administrative things and so and paul ray smith who's uh who's the uh broker helping with a lot of these things so So I defer to him. But the thing that I want to do is make sure that everybody understands that the people that I'm targeting to come to my establishment are these folks here. I'm not targeting the inner city or the way out in the country. I'm trying to create a tasteful, fun place with great food. It's the place you want to watch the game. I have more TVs than you can imagine. to get a great look at the U.K. games and NFL football. And on Saturday night, I'd like to provide a place where someone can bring their spouse and have a few drinks and hang out with their friends and listen to some live music. I don't know if I was able to express this, but getting this permission from the city to be able to, this conditional use, doesn't preclude my responsibilities of having the music at a sound level that is acceptable and doesn't disturb anyone. And so the counter that I want to make to most of the legitimate concerns they have is that I don't have, just because you guys give me a conditional use permit, doesn't mean that I can open the doors and windows and crank it up as loud as I want and throw some, and that's not what we're trying to establish. And I think if anybody understands the demographics in the area, you realize that why would anybody go to that type of environment and create something that doesn't fit in the neighborhood? So what we're trying to do is create a place because there's a need for it. And that's why when I made up my business plan, there's a need for a place, in my opinion, like that in a neighborhood where, I mean, families from the neighborhood can come watch the game, get a good meal. I'm from Louisiana. I plan on cooking the best Cajun food in town. And a place where you can come in on Saturday night and listen to a band at a moderate volume where the people inside aren't complaining that it's too loud. And I even went as far as making sure, and I have a picture if you guys would like to take a look at it, that we don't have an entrance that just walks directly into the business, that you can open a door and then have to go through another doorway to help even further buffer the sound from escaping from the building. So I feel like I've, prior to even coming and learning about these concerns, tried to do everything I can to make sure that I'm adding to the neighborhood, not taking from it. Okay. Thank you. I really don't know if you have any questions. I really don't have much more to add to that. Any questions? I have one. You mentioned Saturday night a couple of times. Are you talking about live music only one night a week on Saturdays? Well, I haven't really thought about it, but pretty much, yeah. What I would like to do is, what I envision is having a place where you have one or two people. As a matter of fact, I'm glad you brought that up because on the application, it asks for as many. I don't think they had a smaller, but we asked for as many as eight people. I'm really looking at two and three piece, something that's very, I don't know if eloquent is the right word, but something that's just background music. Now, I wouldn't want to preclude myself from having the ability to have a four-piece band and have some live music, but the vast majority of the music is going to be maybe a two-piece acoustic where there's no drums, there's no bass players, just an acoustic guitar and a singer or two guitars and a singer, and then occasionally have full bands of maybe four people. But as far as, when you say that, I kind of shiver a little bit. An eight-piece band wouldn't even fit where we've created a small stage. Eight people wouldn't even fit in that area. The application says Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, so are you talking only Saturday? I mean, I would be open to that for full-piece bands with percussion to only be one night a week, but I wouldn't want to reduce myself for things without percussion on the other nights. Well, you said Saturday only, so I'm just wondering if you're backing up on that. I'm sorry. So you want to have live music three nights a week? Okay, it depends on how you define live music. I guess what I'm saying is there's a difference between a four-piece band and drums and a guy, if you've ever been to Regatta or Murray's that's a quarter of a mile down the road, they have two people playing guitar, and it's not very evasive or intrusive at all. I mean, you can hear people talking over it. Any questions or comments from the staff? No, ma'am. We're just available to answer any questions if the board has any for us. Ms. Moore, over here, zoning enforcement. If the board is inclined to want to approve this in one way or another, in cases like this where there have been concerns in the neighborhood, there's two provisions in the zoning ordinance about soundproofing the building and operating the live music in a way there's no disturbance from noise or other emissions to the surrounding neighborhood. And in those cases, we do repeat that language from the ordinance in condition. So maybe if Jimmy or Bill could put up that page, it's 8-48 of the zoning ordinance. While he's doing that, I have a question here. Your, the explanation in the proposal for live entertainment says Friday through Sunday from 9 to 1. When do you, and it's, but this is inside of the restaurant. Yes, sir. Right? And so when do you stop serving food in the restaurant? Well, we anticipate serving food until we close. Okay. Okay. So the live music that you're proposing to have would be going on during the time that people are eating inside the restaurant? Absolutely. Okay. I wonder if it's separate. And I didn't see any interior shots of your plan. Where is the stage? You said it's a corner somewhere? Yes, sir. In the restaurant itself? Yes, sir. Is the restaurant one big room? Yes, sir. Now, we also are going to provide indoor golf. I'm going for a real sporty kind of just entertainment place. So there are two rooms that are isolated for indoor golf, if you know what I'm talking about. You see it over at Dick's, you know, you get the ball into the screen kind of thing. And then there is another room that it doesn't have doors or windows, but it is somewhat it has a it has open ways to walk into it. So it is separate from the restroom. But basically, the entire room outside of the golf rooms and is just a wide open room area. If if we were familiar with an establishment like Damon's, for example, would that conjure up the same kind of image that you are proposing? Drake's, Damon's. Now, I've only lived in Lexington for about eight years, and I know Damon's was where Harry's was in Hamburg. Right. These are the minimum standards of the types of places that I'm looking to do, environment that I'm looking to create. Okay. So in other words, you're saying that whether we include it as a condition or not, this is a requirement? Yes, that's correct. It helps a lot from an enforcement perspective to have it included as a condition. It was not the staff's intention to in any way say that this would not be subject to the soundproofing. And, in fact, it was just mentioned for clarity's sake, I mean, just for simplicity's sake, a restaurant with live entertainment, including it as it's required in the zoning ordinance, was the intention of the staff. We have no problem if we want to make sure that it's clear that such uses shall be soundproofed to the maximum extent feasible per the zoning ordinance. And you would prefer that to be explicit? That's the first part of it. We also need to include the latter part with noise or other emissions, not creating a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. That's a big burden that the applicant should be willing to accept. But this is built in. We don't have to include that as a condition because it's built in to the ordinance, right? You don't have to. it's my recommendation for clarity of everybody's part that you do. That way someone doesn't have to fumble around to find the conditions that are applicable by looking at the ordinance. If you repeat the language, it's right there for the record in the conditions. So that would be my recommendation. But we could incorporate it by reference if we chose otherwise. Or even just simply saying when it says subject to comma, including the noise requirements of and identify the section. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Are we ready for a motion? If you're making a motion, the section and the language that's on the board is also at the very front of your staff report. It's on there. You have a question? Yes, I do. Since there will be music out on the patio as well, I'm not sure if this completely would delay our concerns. We ask you to go to the microphone. Thank you. Go to the microphone. Thank you. This talks about excuse me, I didn't mean to be so loud this talks about something inside the building I remember this also the asked for use includes music in the patio area so there will be outside music as well so while that's great that there should be soundproofing to the extent feasible with existing technology that will not meet all the noise concerns. As I understand the application, the outdoor music is only acoustic and not amplified. Well, if the applicant were to say that he would never subsequently seek amplified music for the patio, that would be a good step. If he has to do that, he's got to come back before us. Is that right, staff? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, he cannot get it without getting a new approval. And, of course, the parking concerns are still at issue. I mean, he has a restaurant, but I think we've discussed already the fact that any parking that's drawn by the concert aspect and the dancing aspect. I mean, we're talking about something that's not just, you know, quiet background music because dancing, too, is involved. So we're talking about something a little bit different than, you know, a Murray's-type situation, I think. And I think that additional element of entertainment draws even more parking concerns than the restaurant would alone. I have a question for you, Jimmy. If we approved this with a six-month or a year review and there were numerous complaints that said they were creating a nuisance in the surrounding neighborhood, then that would be cause for a revocation hearing, correct? Yes. Yes, typically what the board would do is that if you did find that it was causing a nuisance, I don't think that you would typically revoke it right at that moment, but you would set a hearing for a revocation of the conditional use. We have. Am I correct on that for the people who have been doing this longer than I am? If there were a six-month review of this conditional use and they did find that it was a nuisance, I don't think it would be revoked at that hearing. I think the board could then set a revocation hearing at the next date. Yeah, the revocation hearing would have to be noticed as that. Does that answer the board's question? Yes, and so if the neighborhood is interested, it would be important if this passes, and I don't know how it's going to go, but if it passes and you find that there is a nuisance created by this live music, it would be prudent to call it in. many, many times so that in six months if this passes and we put a stipulation that it's reviewed, that there would be a record of them not meeting these conditions. I don't mean to keep going on. If this is passed with a six-month nuisance review or whatever you call it, who has the burden at that hearing to show a nuisance? I mean, right now, he's asking for a change in use. Would we in the neighborhood then have to show that there was a nuisance? I mean, you know, it's like switching responsibility to those of us who are being damaged by the new use. And I would hope that we could continue this to another time and re-notice it so that we don't make a step that makes it extremely difficult for the neighborhood whose business is not calling in complaints and going to hearings, whose business is going about the quality of our lives. I would like that to be given a weight that allows a mistake not to be made and then have to be somehow revoked later if there's enough complaint and problem and nuisance. Well, I do have to say that the neighborhood was concerned about the wine shop, and I remember that meeting, and a lot of people came in, and so we included the six-month review, and it turned out that it wasn't a problem. So I think, you know, on the other hand, I remember in the past there was a case where there was a similar type of establishment, and there were a lot of problems. People had called it in, and then I guess it was a new owner wanted a new conditional use permit, and the board said no. So I think to the extent that the only thing we're looking at right now is the live entertainment. And so I think if the live entertainment doesn't create a problem, it doesn't create a problem. If it creates a problem, then all we're asking is make sure you call somebody and say it's a problem or even just note it down. It just seems that in this particular neighborhood there was a real concern about the wine shop and then it seems that never created a problem. So it is possible that this will not create a problem. So if you want to come up. Does somebody else have something? There was no problem with the wine because, first of all, the wine store belonged to the actual owners who went bankruptcy. and actually that was the reason and also because they weren't making enough sales. So that's the reason why there was no problem in terms of the liquor placing there. Also the owners that filed for bankruptcy had a lot of space in there that was actually occupied by some of their own families and that's another reason why the owner went bankrupt also. Well, I think at this point we should call for a motion. Do you have anything new you would like to add? Jenny Stringer, across the road. only that it has nothing to do with this gentleman and his integrity. It has to do with our permanent residence being there, and these are tenant spaces that I have no idea of his terms. He may have a six-month lease. He may have a two-year lease. He may have a 200-year lease. Please be mindful of that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Based on the conversation during the hearing, the staff would present two additional conditions. Number five, I mean, number six would be that these uses shall be soundproofed to the maximum extent feasible by using existing technology with noise or other emissions, not creating a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood, just clarifying that that part of the ordinance does apply in this case. And condition number seven, should the board wish to do it, that the board shall review this use within six months after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. That way, not six months from today, but if it takes him four months to occupy the use, That way we'll actually get six months of the use in order to review it. And at that time, the board, if you chose that, well, you're not quite satisfied, you could set another six-month review if you wanted to or say that the applicant is complying with the conditions and doesn't need any more review or set a revocation hearing. You would be freed in all of those options at that time. And it's my understanding that in the past we have limited things to a particular owner and you now recommend that that not be limited? Yes, simply because we feel that these conditions are appropriate for this use. On this site, if it were someone other than Mr. Romero, but they were proposing the exact same use, we feel that these conditions are appropriate for the use, not necessarily just because it's Mr. Romero. Does that make any sense? If the board should wish to tie this application to the ownership and operation of the business to the applicant, we can try and write up that condition also if you wanted us to. Do you like that idea? I don't think that's necessary. Didn't we just do that for a tutoring case? I guess I just, because the previous conditional use we just granted was limited to that applicant, so why do we limit that one to that applicant and not to this applicant? i think that the reason why we did it originally was because of its proximity to the residential neighborhood and the and the fact that there were you know as it turned out there was opposition at the hearing on that also so the once again we have no we feel comfortable with what we have recommended but if the board would like to put a null and void condition based on this applicant and this application, the staff has no objection to that. I guess given the neighborhood concern, I would feel more comfortable doing that. Then if it turns out things are okay after six months, but then two years down the road they sell it, then at that point in time there would again be a hearing, and the neighborhood would have a chance to be heard and wouldn't have to affirmatively do as much. So I would feel more comfortable including that condition. An eighth condition for a null and void condition would ensure that the staff would not be able to just transfer this approval to a new applicant. Yeah, without having the neighborhood. Without another board of adjustment hearing. Yeah. If you'll give us a moment, we'll write that up and get it on the board. So, including. And since we have all of this written down, if those eight conditions are acceptable, we'll just hand those over to Wanda. We're correcting the reside to make it appropriate for the business. Any other questions or comments? Are we ready for a motion? Okay. Madam Chairman, I move approval of C-2012-48 David Romero's appeal for a conditional use permit to offer live entertainment accessory to a restaurant in a neighborhood business zone on property located at 43-79 Old Harrensburg Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the eight conditions shown on the screen. I'll second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Was that a three to one? That's three to one. Okay, so we recognize and appreciate your concerns, and I think that the six-month review will give you an opportunity for six months. If it turns out to be a problem, I realize now the burden is on you, but if it is a problem, just make sure that you talk to building inspection, keep records of it, keep notes on it, and then if it really turns out to be a nuisance to the neighborhood, then at the hearing we'll certainly schedule a revocation hearing. And if it's a serious problem before then, I think building inspection can move forward and ask for a revocation hearing even before the six-month review. Okay. All right. So that brings us then to the board items. Does anyone have a board member who wishes to present anything to be heard at this time? Staff? Staff has nothing else to... Okay. Next meeting will be September 28, 2012. There's no other business. The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.