# Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 28, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 28, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2713 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2713?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-09-28 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 17,249 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 September 28, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Vice-Chair Kathryn Moore presided over the meeting, which addressed seven agenda items involving zoning variances, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews. The board took nine votes during the session and heard three public comments. Of the seven cases presented, the board postponed four items: the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association's administrative review of a Zoning Compliance Permit for a mobile MRI facility; Efran & Vladimera Alami's administrative review of a drive-through facility in an R-3 zone; Cohen Realty, Inc.'s conditional use permit request for an extended-stay hotel in P-1 and R-4 zones; and Stanley Gross's conditional use permit request for a rehabilitation home in a B-1 zone. The board denied one variance request from Donny & Dawn Crayne to reduce a floodplain setback from 25 feet to 4 feet. One conditional use permit was approved: Ryan Convoy's request for an animal crematory in an AR zone. A revocation hearing for Southside Pub regarding non-compliance with live entertainment conditions was scheduled for a future date. ## Attendance **Present:** - Kathryn Moore - Barry Stumbo - Janice Meyer - James Griggs - Thomas Glover - Chuck Saylor - Jim Gallimore - Tracy Jones - James Marx **Absent:** - Noel White **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:00:00] The Board unanimously approved minutes from the June 8, 2012 and August 24, 2012 meetings. The motion was made by Barry Stumbo and seconded by James Griggs. **Variance V-2012-64: American Board of Family Medicine, Inc.** [timestamp: 00:07:45] The Board approved a variance for American Board of Family Medicine, Inc. to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 30 feet on Aristides Boulevard. The motion passed 3-2 on a roll call vote. Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, and Thomas Glover voted in favor. James Griggs and Kathryn Moore voted against. The approval includes five conditions, including that the parking lot be constructed according to the submitted site plan, necessary permits be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection, and the final design be subject to review by the Division of Traffic Engineering. **Conditional Use Permit C-2012-56: Lexington Universal Academy** [timestamp: 00:13:23] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for Lexington Universal Academy to expand a school in an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone. The motion was made by James Griggs and seconded by Barry Stumbo. The permit includes conditions that the school operate according to the submitted application and site plan, and that a Zoning Compliance Permit be obtained before increasing enrollment or curriculum. **Conditional Use Permit C-2012-57: Arabesque World Dance, LLC** [timestamp: 00:15:01] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for Arabesque World Dance, LLC to establish a dance studio in a Light Industrial (I-1) zone. The motion was made by Janice Meyer and seconded by Thomas Glover. Conditions include obtaining a Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy, and requiring parental sign-in and sign-out if classes are offered to children or minors. **Conditional Use Permit C-2012-58: Lexington Overstock** [timestamp: 00:16:08] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for Lexington Overstock to operate a furniture warehouse with over 30% floor sales space in a Light Industrial (I-1) zone. The motion was made by Barry Stumbo and seconded by Janice Meyer. Conditions require corrected parking calculations and updated documentation of parking compliance. **Conditional Use Permit C-2012-61: Kingdom Fellowship** [timestamp: 00:17:25] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for Kingdom Fellowship to establish a church in a Highway Service Business (B-3) zone. The motion was made by James Griggs and seconded by Barry Stumbo. Conditions allow for an optional outdoor play area and require compliance with state child care requirements. **Variance V-2012-63: Donny & Dawn Crayne** [timestamp: 01:08:04] The Board approved a motion to disapprove a variance for Donny & Dawn Crayne to reduce floodplain setback from 25 feet to 4 feet for a detached garage in a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone. The motion passed 4-1 on a roll call vote. Barry Stumbo, Janice Meyer, James Griggs, and Kathryn Moore voted in favor of disapproval. Thomas Glover voted against disapproval. **Conditional Use Permit C-2012-59: Ryan Convoy** [timestamp: 02:09:53] The Board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for Ryan Convoy to establish an animal crematory in an Agricultural Rural (AR) zone. The motion was made by Kathryn Moore and seconded by James Griggs. Conditions include compliance with state and federal regulations, installation of gravel prevention measures, annual compliance documentation, and a 12-month review by the Board. **Southside Pub Revocation Hearing** [timestamp: 02:12:01] The Board unanimously approved scheduling a revocation hearing for Southside Pub for non-compliance with live entertainment conditions. The motion was made by James Griggs and seconded by Barry Stumbo. ## Public Comment Three members of the public provided comments regarding concerns about an animal crematory operation. **Charlene Horn** [timestamp: 01:35:23] expressed concern that the animal crematory, located in a PDR-protected area, could negatively affect property values and the region's preservation status. She noted this concern despite acknowledging that the applicant has demonstrated compliance and that no complaints have been filed. **Benny Oaks** [timestamp: 01:52:07] opposed the animal crematory, citing proximity and odor concerns. He reported that neighbors have detected smells from the facility and expressed concern about its impact on property values, noting that the facility is located too close to residential areas. **Joe Stewart** [timestamp: 02:03:06] shared odor concerns based on previous work experience. He noted that his wife previously worked at a similar facility and expressed concern about possible odors, though he acknowledged having no direct evidence of issues at the current location. ## Contested Items **Variance for Donny & Dawn Crayne's Garage** The board considered a variance request from Donny & Dawn Crayne for a garage project. The applicant presented site-specific arguments in support of the variance, citing the steep slope of the property, the presence of a utility pole, and tree preservation requirements as unique circumstances affecting the project. Despite these arguments, the staff recommendation was for disapproval of the variance. The board was divided on the issue, with one board member supporting approval. The variance was ultimately denied by a 4-1 vote. **Animal Crematory in PDR Zone** The board reviewed a proposal for an animal crematory facility to be located in a PDR (Planned Development Residential) zone. The applicant's project complied with applicable regulations and had generated no complaints. However, neighbors expressed strong opposition to the proposal. Community members raised concerns about potential impacts on property values, environmental effects, and the special protected status of the PDR zone. Despite the applicant's regulatory compliance, the community opposition to locating this use in the PDR-protected area remained a significant point of contention during the board's consideration. ## Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association - Administrative review of Zoning Compliance Permit for mobile MRI facility **Item Identifier:** A-2012-45 **Discussion Summary** The administrative review of a Zoning Compliance Permit for a mobile MRI facility in the Cherokee Park neighborhood was addressed during this meeting [timestamp: 00:01:06]. Dick Murphy participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The appeal was postponed to October 26, 2012, at the request of the appellant's attorney. No opposition to the postponement was noted during the meeting. ## Efran & Vladimera Alami - Administrative review of drive-through facility in R-3 [timestamp: 00:02:41] The administrative review of a drive-through facility in an R-3 zone for applicants Efran and Vladimera Alami was discussed during this meeting. Jacob Michael addressed the agenda item. The applicant requested a postponement of the appeal, which the body approved. Staff noted that this represented the second postponement of this matter. The appeal was postponed to October 26, 2012. ## Cohen Realty, Inc. - Conditional use permit for extended-stay hotel in P-1 and R-4 zones Cohen Realty, Inc. sought a conditional use permit for an extended-stay hotel in P-1 and R-4 zones. [timestamp: 00:03:51] Roger Ladenburger was the key speaker on this agenda item. The discussion identified several unresolved concerns that prevented approval at this meeting: * **Drainage impacts** — Questions remained about how the proposed development would handle drainage * **Landscape buffer** — The adequacy and design of landscape buffering required further review * **Off-street parking** — Concerns were raised regarding off-street parking impacts and capacity **Outcome** The appeal was postponed to October 26, 2012, to allow time to address the outstanding issues related to drainage, landscape buffer, and off-street parking impacts. ## Stanley Gross - Conditional use permit for rehabilitation home in B-1 zone **Case Number:** C-2012-55 **Outcome:** The appeal was postponed to October 26, 2012. **Reason for Postponement:** The discussion on this conditional use permit application was postponed due to the need for additional information. Specifically, the applicant was required to provide further details regarding: - Occupancy requirements - Supervision arrangements - Parking provisions **Key Participant:** Janice Meyer was the primary speaker on this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:05:02] ## Donny & Dawn Crayne - Variance to reduce floodplain setback from 25 feet to 4 feet **Identifier:** V-2012-63 The applicants requested a variance to reduce the required floodplain setback from 25 feet to 4 feet for their property. [timestamp: 01:08:04] **Presentation and Arguments** The applicant's attorney presented the case, arguing that unique site conditions justified the variance request. The presentation highlighted three specific factors: * Steep slope on the property * Presence of a utility pole * Tree preservation concerns **Staff Position** Staff maintained disapproval of the variance request. The primary concern centered on floodplain protection, with staff arguing that the standard 25-foot setback requirement should be upheld to protect the floodplain area. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Dick Murphy, John DeHart, and Chuck Saylor. **Outcome** The variance was **denied**. Despite the applicant's arguments regarding the unique site conditions, the board did not approve the reduction in floodplain setback requirements. ## Ryan Convoy - Conditional use permit for animal crematory in AR zone **Identifier:** C-2012-59 **Outcome:** Approved with conditions The board considered a conditional use permit application for an animal crematory facility in an AR zone [timestamp: 02:09:53]. Key participants in the discussion included applicant Ryan Conboy, along with board members Charlene Horn, Benny Oaks, and Joe Stewart. The applicant presented information about operating the animal crematory facility. During the discussion, the board addressed several concerns related to the operation, including: * Odor impacts * Emissions from the facility * Regulatory compliance requirements The applicant indicated that the facility has been operating without complaints from the surrounding area. The board approved the conditional use permit with conditions attached to the approval. The conditions include a requirement for a 12-month review period, which will allow the board to monitor the facility's operations and ensure compliance with the permit terms and any concerns raised during the approval process. ## Southside Pub - Revocation hearing for non-compliance with live entertainment conditions [timestamp: 02:11:00] Staff presented a request for a revocation hearing regarding Southside Pub due to ongoing violations of conditions imposed on the establishment's live entertainment license. **Violations and Concerns** The presentation, led by James Emmons, outlined that Southside Pub had failed to comply with specific conditions of its license. The violations included: - Unauthorized Sunday live entertainment - Unauthorized outdoor events **Action Taken** Rather than proceeding with an immediate revocation, a formal revocation hearing was scheduled for October 26, 2012, to allow the establishment an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present its case. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve minutes from June 8, 2012 and August 24, 2012 - **V-2012-64** — passed (3-2): Approve variance for American Board of Family Medicine, Inc. to reduce front yard setback from 100 feet to 30 feet on Aristides Boulevard - **C-2012-56** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for Lexington Universal Academy to expand school in Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone - **C-2012-57** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for Arabesque World Dance, LLC to establish a dance studio in Light Industrial (I-1) zone - **C-2012-58** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for Lexington Overstock to operate a furniture warehouse with over 30% floor sales space in Light Industrial (I-1) zone - **C-2012-61** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for Kingdom Fellowship to establish a church in Highway Service Business (B-3) zone - **V-2012-63** — failed (4-1): Disapprove variance for Donny & Dawn Crayne to reduce floodplain setback from 25 feet to 4 feet for detached garage in Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone - **C-2012-59** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for Ryan Convoy to establish an animal crematory in Agricultural Rural (AR) zone - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Schedule revocation hearing for Southside Pub for non-compliance with live entertainment conditions --- ## Full transcript Does anyone want to add anything? Okay. All right, so beginning with the business, we have minutes from the June 8, 2012 and August 24, 2012. Does anyone want to make a motion with respect to the minutes? Madam Chair, I'll move that they be approved. Second? Okay, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Thank you. Okay, so we will now move towards sounding the agenda. Before we do that, why don't we have everybody stand. If you are planning to testify, please stand. And raise your right hand. And affirm that you are willing to tell the truth in your testimony. Okay, thank you. And if you have any cell phones, please turn them down. Or off. Okay, thank you. So first I will go through the agenda. If there are any applicants here who would like to withdraw or postpone their matter, please let me know. A-2012-45, Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association. Are you here for the applicant? Madam Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent the property owner. Oh, I'm sorry. We are still actually negotiating with the association, and they had asked for postponement. we'd agreed and agreed that I would be the one to get up and ask you for it. So we'd request a postponement for one month on the A-2012-45 Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association. Madam Chair, the staff would also like to point out that we did receive an e-mail communication from Mr. John Park, the president of the Cherokee Neighborhood Association, requesting a one-month postponement to the October 26th Board of Adjustment hearing. that the postponement is acceptable to the staff. Is there anybody in the audience who objects to the postponement of this matter? Okay. Madam Chair, I move we postpone A2012-45. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Any other matters people would like to postpone or withdraw? Hello, my name is Jacob Michael. I'm here on behalf of Irfan and Vladimir Alami A2012-53. Matt Malone and myself have recently retained to represent the applicants in this matter and haven't had a chance to go through the file and adequately prepare. I'd like to request a postponement for one month. So moved. Is anybody in the audience in opposition? No? Okay. Madam Chair, before the Board acts on this, the staff would like to point out this is the second month for this, and we would ask that the applicant re-notify the notice area for this one. It will be two months that this one has been postponed. I spoke with the new attorney right before this hearing. And you're willing to do that? That's fine. Okay. Staff just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you very much. I move we postpone it for one month with re-notice to the neighbors. I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Closed? Thank you. See you next month. Madam Chairman, I'm Roger Ladenberger. On page 4, item 6, C-2012-60, I'm here to represent Cohen Realty, and we agree with the staff's recommendation and request a postponement until October the 26th. Is there anyone in the audience in opposition to a postponement? Staff? Staff is okay. Recommending it. Okay. Madam Chairman, I move that we postpone C-2012-60 for 30 days, or next month, I'm sorry. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, if there are no other postponement or withdrawal requests from the audience, the staff has received a letter via email from Stanley Gross on page 2 of your agenda, item C, 2012-55 for Stanley Gross. It's an appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a rehabilitation home on property at 427 Georgetown Street. The staff is recommending postponement. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a postponement for a one-month period to your October 26th hearing. No one in the audience opposes a postponement. I move we postpone for a month. I'll second. C-2012-55. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. It's postponed. Thank you. That are all the postponements and withdrawals that the staff has received. Okay. All right. In light of that, I will now go through the agenda with the remaining cases. And please, if the applicant is here, please let me know. If you're here in opposition, please let the applicant know. And if you're in opposition, we'd like you to go out and talk in the hall, see if there's some misunderstanding, if you can work it out. Okay. So first, V2012-63, Donnie and Don Crane. Is the applicant here? Okay. Is there anyone here in opposition? Okay. Second, V2012-64, American Board of Family Medicine, Inc. You're the applicant. Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. C2012-56, Lexington Universal Academy. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay, C-2012-57, Arabesque World Dance LLC. Applicants here, is anyone here in opposition? Okay, C-2012-58, Lexington Overstock. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay, 3-2012-59, Ryan Conboy. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? if you would like to go out what will happen is we will go through the non-contested matters first and then we will talk about the things where the staff recommends disapproval and where there's opposition and 2012-61 Kingdom Fellowship is the applicant here? is anyone here in opposition? Okay, so the first matter that we will consider is V2012-64, American Board of Family Medicine, Inc. Would the applicant please come forward? Okay, please state your name for the record. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Okay. And have you read the staff's report? Yes. And do you have any questions about the report? No, we're in agreement. Okay, and the conditions, are you willing to abide by the conditions? Yes. Okay. Do you have any questions for the board? Just looking for approval. Okay. And do you have any comments or questions for us? No, ma'am. I have a question for the staff. Bill, on this staff report, the first thing I noticed was that you're saying that it won't set a precedent, but the lot's rectangular and flat. I'm wondering if we don't need to have that much setback on these streets if there should be a text amendment. Can you speak to that? I can. And there has already been, over the years, one text amendment to the setback requirements in the P2 zone to lessen the lot setbacks. They mostly apply to cul-de-sac type streets. And, of course, this street is not a cul-de-sac. The unique circumstance with the subject lot is that it is surrounded, of course, on two sides by streets. On the other side by a lot that encompasses the Carnahan House at the university. It's the staff's understanding that the applicant doesn't have the option to negotiate purchasing some of that lot so they could expand the parking. On the third side of the property, there is a scenic easement and a conditional zoning restriction for the setback from Newtown Pike. So those were really the unique circumstances the staff found in this particular property to recommend approval. we could not think of hardly any variances that had been granted in the Coldstream Park in the 20-some years it's existed. So variances do seem to be very rare in this zone. Well, I'm still not understanding why, if the setbacks are what they are and the lot is full as it stands where the special circumstances are. It's just a lot that's been built out, in my opinion. So I'm wondering if that neighborhood is, I understand it's the only P2 professional office subdivision that we have in Fayette County. if having that much green space around these facilities is a thing of the past, why doesn't this applicant go for a text amendment and change it? Well, they certainly could ask for a variance to the open space, but in this case, the 200-foot setback that's required from Newtown makes them meet their minimum open space requirement, probably with plenty to spare. In this particular lot, really the only option that we saw that they could expand their parking, probably in the hopes that they could also expand the building at some point, was to come out in the front direction. Well, that's what I was getting to. It seems like it's the first step towards overbuilding this lot. Maybe if they know they're going to build another structure, they should consider building multilevel parking. And they may end up choosing to do that. In this park, what we've seen most of the time when different users want larger buildings or additional parking, they move the property lines and, say, take a five-acre lot to maybe a seven-acre lot. This particular lot is constrained on the other two sides by a piece that UK has with Carnahan that doesn't look like it lends itself to what's been done in the past for folks that want to expand their uses out here. Thank you. You're welcome. I guess this raises my related question. Why do you need so much parking? It's not to meet a minimum requirement, is it? It's to give the intended user the space they're requiring. Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay. Well, Madam Chair, Item V-2012-64, American Board of Family Medicine, appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 100 feet to 30 feet along Rister Boulevard. In order to construct additional parking in office, industry, and research park zone, I'm probably located at 1500 Aristides Boulevard. I move that it be approved. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Opposed. Okay. That's just good luck. Thank you. Okay, so the next matter is C-2012-56, Lexington Universal Academy. Madam Chair, as this applicant is coming up here, the staff would like to point out for this conditional use and all of the conditional uses on today's agenda, the required sign was posted on all of the properties and all of the required notice for everything on the agenda did go out, including neighborhood notices. Thank you. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record. My name is Munir Shalish. I'm with the Lexington Universal Academy. And have you read the staff's report? I have. Do you have any questions about the staff's report? I do not. And have you read their conditions? Yes, I have. Are you willing to abide by those conditions? We are. Okay. Staff, do you have any questions or comments? Board? Madam Chair, I move that we approve C-2012-56 Lexington Universal Academy's appeal for a conditional use permit to expand a school of academic instruction in an agricultural zone at 4580 and 4590 Nicholasville Road, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the conditions. I'll second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, the next matter is C-2012-57, Arabesque World Dance, LLC. Would you please state your name for the record? My name is Tina Sophia Farrell, and I'm with Arabesque World Dance, LLC. And have you read the staff's report? Yes, I have. Did you understand the staff's report? Yes, I do. Do you have any questions? No, ma'am. And have you read the conditions? Yes, I have. And are you willing to abide by those conditions? Absolutely. Okay. Steph, any questions coming? Coming. No? Board? Okay. Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2012-57 Arabesque World Dance LLC appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a dance studio in a light industrial I-1 zone at 451-B Chair Avenue in Council District 3 as recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. The next matter is C-2012-58 Lexington Overstock. Good afternoon. My name is Frank Culberson, architect with LCM Company, representing the owner of the property. Okay. Have you read the staff's report? Yes, ma'am. And do you and your client understand the staff report? We do. And have you read the conditions? We have. Is your client willing to abide by those conditions? We are. Okay. And do you have any questions? No questions. We've been working with the staff on this. We appreciate the help. Okay. Any comments, questions? The staff has nothing to add. Okay. Board? Madam Chair, I'll move item C-2012-58, Lexington Overstock, appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a furniture warehouse with more than 30% of the floor sales space and wide industrial zone at 156 West Tibberton Way be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Good luck. Thank you. Okay, the next matter will be C-2012-61 Kingdom Fellowship. Please state your name for the record. Joe Thacker. And have you read the staff's report? Yes, ma'am. And do you have any questions? No, I don't. And have you read the conditions? Yes, I have. Are you willing to abide by the conditions? Yes, we are. Okay. Staff? Okay. Anyone would like to bring a motion? Madam Chair, I move that we approve C-2012-61 Kingdom Fellowship's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a church in a highway service business zone at 2009 Family Circle, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the three conditions. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations. Good luck. Okay, so that brings us back to V2012-63. Donnie and Don Crane is the applicant here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. at 2230 Harrods Point Trace. And Donnie Crane is with me in the front row here. Don is in the back there. And John DeHart, architect from Thought Space Architects, who's the designer of this project, is here. And Chaz Height is an urban planner, assisting me on the case as well. We're here requesting variants from 25 feet to 4 feet for the setback from the edge of a floodplain. And I want to make sure it's clear what we're not asking for, because there's three things you get involved with in dealing with floodplains. One is you can't be in the floodplain itself, and we are not in the floodplain itself. We are at no point as any part of this building in the floodplain. And if this building is built at the location we're asking for, no flood insurance would be required because we're not in the floodplain. The second one is there's a provision in the ordinance that says that there is a vegetative cover area 25 feet from the center line or bank of a stream, depending on what type of stream it is, and we are not in that. We are not in the 25-foot vegetative area from the bank of the stream, so I want to make clear that we're not asking for that. What we are asking for is there's also a 25-foot setback, just like a building setback from a right-of-way, from the edge of a floodplain. And we are within that, but that's an area that can be built in if a variance is granted. It does not require flood insurance because it's not in a floodplain, and we're a great distance above the floodplain elevation-wise. And this is a variance. You all have had a few of these in the past and granted a few of these variances. And the setback from the floodplain, not for somebody being in the floodplain, but a setback from the floodplain. And Mr. and Mrs. Crane have owned and lived in this house for 17 years. At the point they have a teenage child, ninth grader. They need more space, and they've been looking around to what their options are and really want to stay in this house. They obviously like their neighbors, they like the location, they like the school district they're in, and they'd like to stay here to do a remodel on their house. As the staff has pointed out, the building which is at issue here is a two-car garage. The staff did point out that the house already has a garage there, which is true. And although it's really immaterial to granting the variance, I asked the Cranes last night, well, why do you need a garage here? And Mrs. Crane took me back to the end of the house, not the garage, but into the house itself, and said, here's why we need a variance. And that is because they have a car and a motorcycle and a trailer and a jet ski in the house, not in the garage, but in the house. They have an active lifestyle. They are very active outdoors, as you can see. And in order to redo the house, they need to get the things which should be in a garage in a garage on there. So they're asking. It's not unusual to have a garage like this. They're asking for part of this portion of the remodel will be a two-car garage. and so they, in doing this, they engaged an architect, John DeHarg, from Thought Space Architects, who's a very good residential architect here in Lexington. Donnie Crane went ahead and staked where this location would be so his neighbors could see it, and he went around to see the two neighbors on either side, who would be the only ones who would have any possibility of seeing this, And as you can see in my set of exhibits there, the first page is a petition from all those four neighbors, two on either side, saying that they have no objection to this. And I would mention, I think the most important one is the one person who has a shared driveway with the cranes right next door to them, and they signed this petition in support of their application as well. So the neighbors know about this and can see where it is or are in support of it. Now, I read the staff report, and I understand what they're saying. I disagree with them. I feel we have unique characteristics, but we also have some that perhaps it was my fault for not articulating to the staff when we made the application. and part of that was because I hadn't had a chance to fully talk this over with John, the architect, and with Mr. and Mrs. Crane. But we do have a pie-shaped lot. It only has 32 feet of frontage on Harrods Point Trace. It's a five-sided lot, and there's always issues when you have a five-sided lot. We have a very steep slope on the property. it's about 22 feet drop from the street to the back of the property over a course of about 135 feet. And that's extremely steep. That's something you'd find if you're hiking over in Raven Run or something like that, which would be very difficult to get a driveway along back. Theoretically, there's enough space in the backyard to put a garage in that would not be in this setback area. But that's a bad idea for this property, as I'll be discussing in a minute. And the garage is at an angle. It's not the whole block of the garage. It's one point of the garage, which is going to be four feet from the edge of this 25-foot setback area. I want to show you some pictures. We've got about four there. I just wanted to get you a little idea about the property we're looking at here. The first one is just looking at the property from the street. And I'm sure that will get up there in a second. There it is. That's the view from Harrods Point Trace. As I said, that's our driveway on the left. You're seeing almost the entire frontage of the house. It's 32 feet along Harrods Point Trace. The second one shows the elevation drop from the street. We're looking on the street, and right here is our next-door neighbor's car, just down the driveway. You can see how far it drops. That's the back of the driveway right there. That's where we'd be putting the garage. And then it further drops down an equal amount toward the back of the lot. The third one, we're back in the lot, and we're showing the elevation of where we are at the end of the driveway, how it drops off going down. This fence is approximately the end of the driveway as it comes in, and you can see this fence sloping on down to the bottom of the street. And I want you to see this is an open area here. It looked like there were a lot of trees there in the first slide we had, but where the garage is, there are not a lot of trees. The fourth and last picture, we're standing here. This is the stake right here is the back edge of what our proposed garage is. And I took that to show you that there, we're looking up to the driveway. We're in a shaded area. There's a lot of trees around there. You can see the shade here and the sun peeping through. But we have very few trees that would have to be removed to put the garage in this particular location. The third page of my handout is an aerial photograph. This is from the PVA. And you can see there, looking at page three, our lot is outlined in red. and you can see somewhat the tree cover that we have in the back and along the stream. And I'll be discussing that tree cover a little bit more. But first I want to discuss the staff's concerns, and I know they are concerned. And I'll just read you what I need to address from the staff report, which is the last paragraph of the text. It says, There is ample room to the rear of this lot that in addition could be built to the home. There is also room to the rear of the lot that a detached accessory structure could be built without the need for the requested variance. Additional paving or site work may be required to do so, but that site work would be out of the floodplain and would not have a negative impact to the floodplain on this or surrounding properties. Well, probably based on the information we had given them, I understand where they're coming to that conclusion, but that's not all the information is. And like I said, part of that's my fault for not having gotten all my information from the architect and from the landowners at this point. But there are some other issues besides the steep slope and besides the shape of the lot that are contributing to why we need this variance. The first one is the trees situation. This lot is about 0.37 acres, just over a third of an acre. On the backyard alone in this lot, we counted yesterday 28 mature trees. Now, most of these trees are not in the floodplain area, not in the setback area. They're in the yard area of the Crane's house. The location where John DeHart has sited this garage would require us to only remove three trees. We'd still have 25 trees in the backyard and a third of an acre house, which is a huge number of trees to have there. If we were to put a detached structure in the back part of the yard that was outside of the setback area, we'd have to remove a great deal number more of trees in order to do that. Plus, we'd probably have to do paving to get the driveway down there. John cited this garage where he did because no additional paving would be needed and because we wouldn't have to take out any more than the three trees which we feel will be necessary to do it. The trees, really, I know we have a 25-foot cover buffer along the stream, which we're not disturbing, but the real buffer in this area is the trees, which buffer us from the properties behind. As you can see on the aerial photograph, the properties behind this have the bulk of the floodplain on them. That big open area is really the floodplain in the back of the lots that back up to them. The houses are at least 400 feet away from the cranes' house. It's a different subdivision. It's one of these deals where you have to drive a mile to see your neighbor who's right behind you on this. But there's a 400-foot distance at least between the neighbors behind us. And it's those trees in the backyard of the cranes and on the other yards along there which are actually doing the buffering here. You can see there's the map, and here's the end of the driveway right here, and the garage will be in this location. Now, if we were to put the garage back here, we'd be taking out a greater number of trees, and there's another issue I'll talk about in a minute here. This is an older photograph, and it's actually more treed back there than even this photograph is showing. But you can see the tree area here, which is buffering this property from these properties in here. When you're getting up here, you can't really see back to these properties due to these trees. So we're trying to, ironically, we're trying to preserve more of these trees by getting the variance. Then we'd be able to do, I guess, as a matter of right, if we build it right in the backyard where we're not in setback. We could get a building permit for that, take down as many trees as we wanted. but that's not the right location for the garage structure. The other issue here is that, which I didn't know about until going back out there, seeing there is a large utility pole sitting in the back of the yard about where my laser pointer is pointing. The cranes are the lucky ones in the neighborhood. They get the big utility pole in the back of their yard. There are two sets of guy wires holding this up with three or four guy wires per set. One of them is about 12 o'clock facing the house, and the other is about a 5 o'clock angle sitting back there. And the utility has an easement for that and everything like that. So between the trees, the slope, and the utility easements in there, it would be extremely difficult to get a detached structure in this area, which theoretically we could do as a matter of right without coming before you, rather than in this area. And the last thing I want to show you is the grade of this structure. I asked Mr. Crane, Mr. Crane is a mechanical engineer here in Lexington. He works as a mechanical engineer. this is a cross section of their property if we could zoom out a little bit yeah you've got it in there now this is the this is the sidewalk up here and we're going down to the stream in the back the drop from the sidewalk to the floor elevation of the garage is nine feet. Now the drop from the floor elevation of the garage to what would be the water level if the water were occupying the entire floodplain is nine feet. Now the cranes have actually never seen it up there. They've lived here. They built the house new. they've lived there 17 years, they have seen it about up to a level two feet below that, which would be about 11 feet elevation difference between the base level of the garage and where the floodplain level is. Now, the point we're making is that if we were to put a detached structure in the back of the yard where we wouldn't need a variance from you, it would still be more than 25 feet away horizontally, from the floodplain, that would be sited at about this lower elevation right here. And it would be farther toward us. It wouldn't be in this broad section, but it would be on the side behind the house. But my point is this. There's two dimensions we have to be concerned about when we're dealing with a floodplain. One is the horizontal dimension, which is what we're asking for a variance from. It's from the edge of the floodplain. We have a 25-foot setback. But there's also a vertical dimension, which is probably more important in dealing with floodplains, and that is what we're requesting is nine feet above the base level layer. The base of the foundation would be probably three feet above the floodplain elevation, as opposed to a structure in the backyard which met the horizontal setback which is required but would be closer vertically to the highest level of the floodplain. So taking all that together, I know the staff had concerns, well, just the shape of the lot and the slope of the lot. Those weren't unique enough circumstances. But I think when you take the shape of the lot and the slope of the lot and the fact that our architect tried to site this where we leave as many trees as possible, the fact that we have a big utility pole in the backyard with guy wires that are blocking using of most of the backyard, which is out of the setback area, and the fact that this elevation issue that I've pointed out to you, I think those are unique circumstances combined together which can show you why we need to have the structure at the location we've got it here. Mr. Crane, as I said, is a mechanical engineer, and he's done this right. He staked it out so everybody could see. He's hired an architect to try to get the building in the right location. He's come to you. Obviously, he hasn't started work before he came to you, which some people do. But I guess in conclusion, if the purpose of the setback is to provide visual screening, we think this location provides better visual screening than it would be if we were to try to find a location for a detached building elsewhere on the lot because we can save trees. The trees are the main visual screening we have out here. If it's to provide a further safety valve for the floodplain, which they've never seen it actually use the entire floodplain anyway, but if that is the purpose, we think, again, we're at an elevation which is equal to or greater than the elevation of a detached building would be in the backyard. And it's not a mistake. I mean, Mr. and Mrs. Crane had an architect cite this, and there's a reason he cited it the way he did. We won't have to do any more paving. We won't have to do any more driveway coming down here. So I think I've probably said enough on this. We do have in the handout a set of my proposed findings if you were to consider granting approval of this, which we certainly hope you would. But again, we think the totality of this operates, that there are, this is a unique situation on this lot, and that a variance is very justified, especially with the buffer issues we've discussed. Thank you. Can you want to ask a question or should I? I have a couple of questions, Mr. Murphy. The drawing that's up there, could you put that back up, please? When you look at the scale, which is written on the bottom, one inch equals 20 feet, so I'm imagining that that's carefully drawn out, and yet this plat that we have in our handout shows the distance between the street and the front of the house to be about equal to the depth of the house, and then that distance again is about equal to the back property line, whereas on that drawing, it looks like there's five times the house width at the front yard and three times the house width at the back. This is Donnie Crane, the owner. You got the pointer right here. The house stops right here and goes this direction. So this is the back edge of the driveway, and the house is up that direction. We're not showing the house on the cross section. All that is is the section where the garage will be. That drawing doesn't look like it could possibly be accurate. Show me what the section is that that drawing is on this flat. That's right. through there is where that section is. So you've got a couple of inches here, a couple of inches of house, and an inch and a half of lot in the back. So how does that come close to what you've shown drawn there? I think I can answer that because if you could pull that over to show the left-hand scale, there you go. Now the house would be starting about here if we were showing the house because the house is in front. Oh, are you saying that that's a drawing of the garage? Yes, that's only the garage. That's only the garage. Well, and it's labeled garage. I had the wrong idea of what that was. And the other thing is that if I'd wanted to make my case better, I would have had Mr. Crane condense the horizontal scale, but instead the horizontal scale is 1 inch equals 20. The vertical is 1 inch equals 10. I'm sorry I took up the board's time. I was wrong on what I was... It's actually steeper than this. We can change the subject. I was wrong in what I was imagining there. Thank you. So just to clarify, when we look at this, the front of the garage is nine feet above the floodplain, correct? Yes. Okay, then the back of the garage, did you say it was three feet? It's going to be about, I'm guessing, about three feet at that point right there for the base of the garage there. Okay, so is that lower level going to be used or not? I think the cranes would like to use it if they could for, like, putting a lawnmower under there and that sort of thing. Okay, and so while it's a one-story structure, it's sort of a one-and-a-half, half of it being down. So if this were, in fact, behind the house, how far would the bottom of the garage be from the floodplain? I mean, you've pointed out here that it's nine feet at the front, then more or less three feet at the rear. If it were actually behind, what would the elevation be? Well, I'm guessing, and Mr. Crane, you can correct me if I'm wrong, If we put this behind the house where we wouldn't need a variance, I'm estimating the base would probably be about at the level of the floodplain, but it would be 25 feet back from the floodplain. That's why I was telling you the horizontal versus the vertical issue on that. So when we say it's a hill, it's a hill across the back. I mean, so behind the house there's a hill, and then where the garage is going to be is on a hill. It's all the same. The only difference is if it's behind the house, it starts a little bit further back. Is that? It starts, it's probably another 20 feet. If we put it behind the house, it would be probably 20 feet further back. Do you want to use this and put it up there so they can come to show us? Yeah. Can you show that? I guess if we're saying this is our application, obviously, which cites it. And if we were to move structure down here, you can see we have an area which is actually outside the setback area, which we wouldn't need a permit for theoretically. But it would be lower because this area of the property is lower than this area is here on it. So we would actually be down closer to the elevation of the floodplain, even though we're farther away horizontally from the edge of the floodplain. But the big problem we have on that is that this is the big, both it's the big treat area, and the utility pole is sitting what, about here? Is that about correct? Pole's there, and the guy wires come back this way, and the guy wires come back this way. Do you folks have a plat that shows the electrical easement? It seems like since this is so important to your argument, you would have that here. We've got that. We have one that we can put on the overhead. They've got an easement, and then they've got jut outs for the guy wire, and we found that the guy wires actually aren't in the easement. They're out of the easement, for whatever that's worth. The guy wires are out of the easement? Yeah, they made a guy wire easement and then they put the guy wires out of the guy wire easement when they put the pole up there. But we understand you need them. You've got to put them where you've got to put them in order to support the weight of the wires on the pole. There's the property. Here is the utility easement going along the back. Here is the guy wire easement for the one set. The guy wires are slightly out of it. They're not very far out of it. They come out about here. The other set goes down here inside the utility easement here on that. And I might mention here, too, the floodplain has been changed. in the latest mapping program. The FEMA did a more accurate floodplain mapping on it, and the floodplain is actually back here. What's happened is there's a big retention area on the other properties behind us where those big long properties go in. They've constructed a big retention area with gabion baskets of rocks to support it and all that sort of thing, which you see if you go out in the back of the property. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, I've got a couple of more questions. Have you all considered using off-site storage to solve this problem? I mean, it looks like a fairly large house. It's a ranch on a basement right with all the garages in the basement. So you've got a large ranch home, and then a portion of the basement is garage, and a portion of the basement is unfinished, or maybe it's finished? It's about a 1,900-square-foot ranch, and we've got about half of the basement is garage, and the other half is unfinished basement that we planned on fitting out someday. Well, in the 17 years, we've kind of filled it with things. So this is 3,800 square feet, a portion of it, a quarter of it is basement or is garage. Yes. And a family of three. Yes. What about using off-site storage for these toys? I mean, renting a space, you know? Yeah, we've thought about it, but it would certainly be nice to have them at the house. Right now I've got a pickup truck that I keep at the office parked in the parking lot, and it's been vandalized twice. And it's getting kind of expensive to keep something off site. Thank you. I have a question for the staff. After hearing Mr. Murphy articulate the reasons he hadn't earlier about why this is a lot has special circumstances, are you still of the opinion that this would be precedent setting? Or you didn't actually use precedent setting in your findings, but you thought that there were not special circumstances here? Mr. Murphy has definitely provided some additional justifications for this property that were not in the original application. However, the staff still feels that the findings that we have provided in our staff report are still valid findings for the recommendation on this subject property. So you still recommend disapproval? The staff still would stand by our recommendation in the staff report. Thank you. One thing for you, Mr. Murphy, in your petition by the two neighbors on either side in support, I'm always a little skeptical of those because to keep peace in a neighborhood, close neighbors do not say they are in opposition typically, even though they might cringe at the idea of that garage being there. I don't know these people personally, but I don't put a lot of weight on that petition. Well, it depends on the neighborhood. From what I've been out to this property three or four times, meeting with the Cranes, I have every reason to believe I know the neighbors get along. The reason the Cranes want to stay here and don't want to move is because of the neighbors that are here. it's cited so that the garage will not be obstructing views from other neighboring houses of the creek or anything like that I guess I would have greater concern if we were obstructing views if the neighbors had expressed an objection I mean I think on the other hand the fact that the neighbors are willing to sign something. I find it's very difficult to get people to sign anything because usually when you get going up to a neighbor's house, and I've done this sometimes, they say, oh, I just don't, you know, I like you fine, I just don't want to get involved, I don't sign this kind of stuff. And I find that when a person does sign something, they generally mean it. Because apathy usually leads a person not to sign at all rather than to sign something. And I guess the concern here, too, is that if the variance isn't granted, is that going to, I mean, the cranes always have the option of building some kind of structure in the backyard that meets the setback. And I'm very concerned that that would be worse for the area, worse for the buffer, than it would be to put the garage at this location, where, as I said, we're only taking out three trees. I have a question, Mr. Murphy, if you don't mind, or Mr. Crane, either one, and maybe of staff, too, or perhaps the architect. I'm interested in, I want to understand what this is. We've had this issue come up in the past. The 25-foot setback is from the boundary of the floodplain. Is that correct? That's correct. It doesn't get into the floodplain at all. It's just from the edge of the floodplain. And what this variance is asking for is for, it's a variance from the setback and not from the floodplain. So my question has to do with the setback itself. Is that a horizontally measured setback? It states, I think, it's measured along the ground, which is generally a horizontal measurement. Okay, but the character of this lot is that it's a steep lot. So some of this 25 feet is vertical and some of it is horizontal. Is that a fair statement? That's probably not the best way to say that. It's not. I think our experience is most of the time this 25-foot area is sloped because it's going from the edge of the floodplain to a higher elevation. Sure. That's across town. And as I understand, the purpose of the setback is to account for like a 500-year flood or something like that. I mean, the floodplain is where the watercourse or waterway is likely to flood or has flooded in the past. The setback is to accommodate some catastrophic event. Is that correct? The 25-foot floodplain setback is actually even beyond the 500-year floodplain as determined by FEMA. The FEMA requirements, minimum requirements, are that a residential house be built outside of the floodplain and one foot above the floodplain elevation. Lexington in 2000, we redid our zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and adopted the engineering manuals and adopted the best management practices of going above and beyond what the FEMA requirements were. So now we require things to not only be outside of the floodplain, but an additional 25 feet horizontally and 2 feet vertically outside of the floodplain, which far exceeds FEMA's requirements. It was for flood protection, a conservative best management practice. And what's the purpose of the setback? For the best management practices of additional buffers outside of the floodplain. A buffer against what? From the floodplain, actually. Every time that FEMA updates the FEMA maps, those floodplains are developed, the engineering standards are to a snapshot in time. So the floodplains and our maps are not updated on a very regular basis. They were adopted in 1977 and then again in 1992 and then again in 2008. Each time, generally, the floodplains will tend to get bigger because there is more development in the floodplain. The FEMA maps were a snapshot in time of what the development and what the floodplain is at the time that those maps are approved for flood insurance. Hence the basic concept of the best management practice of the additional buffers. So the FEMA floodplain maps get larger because of encroachments into the floodplain or into the setback areas? They have the potential to each and every floodplain could possibly get larger if there was more impervious area and more water was coming into the floodplain. Sure. Or they also have the potential to get smaller if a new study was done and there was better information that was put into the engineering model that created the floodplain. So at any time, those maps would have the ability to either get bigger or smaller. In this particular case, the floodplain did shrink a little bit from the time, from the 1992 maps to the 2008 maps. the 25 foot floodplain setback that is before you today is from the current regulatory flood maps of the 2008 flood maps. Mr. Glover, I think the basic theory of why setback is put in place from the floodplain, certainly Mr. Saylor can correct me if he thinks it need be, is to allow access to the edge of the floodwaters where structures could impede that access. I think that's the basic theory of why the restriction exists. Okay. Mr. Glover, if I could add something to that over here. Sorry. Chuck, Sailor Engineering. The buffer serves an important purpose for protecting the floodplain as well. I know in looking at this application, I've been on hundreds if not thousands of construction sites, and with a four-foot or five-foot setback from that, invariably, activity will occur in the floodplain. You'll have a landscaper with a skid steer going out into that. So it's there not only to protect the people from the floodplain, but to protect the floodplain from those types of construction activities. So, you know, when you get down, if we allow folks to build to the floodplain, I think you can guess that every structure that was built, they would encroach into that floodplain 10, 15, 20 feet to build that. So that's also a very important purpose for that setback. Okay. Is the – from the drawing that's in the application, as I understand, there is or is not a garage. Maybe it's in here and I just missed it and haven't looked at it. Is there an existing structure that this replaces, or is this just new? This is a new structure. The existing garage is underneath the existing house. Oh, okay. It's a structure. Okay. I've got a little more information to be able to give you here from talking to people. The projection John used to create this was a flat projection of the 25 feet from the edge of the floodplain, which is probably the most conservative way we could do it. If we'd use some other projection, we might be asking for less of a variance. The floodplain on this property was actually greatly reduced in size when FEMA reviewed it in 2008, and that's most likely because of the retention area that's over here. if you could go back to the cross section drawing here we go we've heard discussion about this issue we could instead of making this a solid foundation put that on steel beams or piers which would leave this area open underneath I think using best practices, I know on construction sites now where there's a floodplain where developers are required to put construction fences and all sorts of things along there to prevent access of construction equipment into that area. We are certainly capable of doing that and can do that. I think John DeHart, the architect, could discuss the impact of impervious surfaces. Madam Chair, Board Members, I'm John DeHart with ThoughtSpace Architects. I think it should be noted if we could maybe go back to the site plan. Do you have a pointer? If you think about the buildable area where staff is potentially suggesting we would put a garage, one of the issues is we have no access to this side of the yard because of encroachment here so it would mean extending significantly impervious surface to get to that location of the garage and also if you can imagine from a line straight across here the site falls off as we've been talking about radically it will require a significant amount of infill bringing in to bring that driveway to an elevation that's serviceable otherwise we're going to have an eight-foot drop on a driveway, you know, as you can imagine in wintertime, trying to get out of these kind of really low area on the site. But in either way, I think it should be noted that we're going to be putting an extra burden in terms of impervious surface on the site by locating the garage further back than when we've located it right at the end and we're effectively adding no more impervious surface. So can I clarify, is the current garage then that rate? Yeah. So you come down the driveway. It's a shared driveway, so the neighbor turns and goes to his garage that way. The cranes turn and go underneath, and they have a garage right here. So this area is existing concrete that all is there now. So effectively, especially if we were to do this, support this garage on columns, we could leave underneath it natural ground, impervious surface. then we're effectively not really adding a bunch of impervious surface to the site which increases runoff to the floodplain area. Are there any other questions? I guess I have one more question. I understood that this floodplain map is the most recent, most current that you have from FEMA. You said 2008. Is this the kind of thing that changes from time to time? I mean, in four years, is this line going to move one way or the other? I'm not sure it would move that quickly. The maps are updated. probably every decade or 15 years. We had some in the late 70s, the early 90s, and now 2008. So they do move, yes. I'm not sure it's quite that frequently. I have a question from Mr. Sawyer. What do you think of the idea of putting it on beams? Does that make any difference? For what's being requested, I don't know that it would. construction wise I think it would lend itself to maybe a little more assurance that there wouldn't be any activity in the flood plain but as far as the variance goes it's still 21 out of 25 foot encroachment so I don't know what kind of precedence that's going to set but I would still agree that it should be disapproved but that's my opinion so If I may, we've been discussing this further, and we could remove about four feet of width off the side there, which would take it almost four feet farther back from the edge of the floodplain. And I'm guessing, John, would that be down instead of 25 to 4, would that bring it to 25 to 7 or roughly? We're just sort of guessing here, 25 to 7 feet to bring the building farther back. from the edge of the floodplain, we could do that and would save that further area, so to speak, to give us a greater margin for error so we keep out of the floodplain. Mr. Murphy, I have another solution. It would eliminate a few of the garage doors in the existing garage, but just bring the whole thing up onto the driveway and attach it to the house. You mean pull it this way? Where it says shared concrete drive, just build it there. Build it right, make it an attachment to the house and have a two-car garage. Well, I think the neighbor has to use that back in and get into there. We can't do that without cutting off the neighbor's rights there. Okay, just an idea. I can see that both households use that large concrete pad to maneuver in and out of their garages. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, thoughts? I'm sure I've got a comment or two. Thank you. After listening to Mr. Murphy and listening to the staff, and rarely do I disagree with the staff because I think they do an excellent job, but I personally feel that the applicant and Mr. Murphy, I actually support their right to grant this variance, and I think that the proposed location is in the best spot. I mean, it certainly seems to be illogical to put it in the back of the House. I think their request is reasonable. Even as Jimmy was saying that Mr. Murphy has brought up a few points, they still feel that their grounds for disapproval are still valid, but it didn't sound like they were as strong. But I think that what the Cranes have done and what the architect and Mr. Murphy have done, And I think they've created the best of a solution. And I think that if he wants to build a garage, I think that they put a lot of hard work and due diligence in this. And I really don't have a problem with granting this variance. I just want to make that comment. Well, I'd just like to say that the gentleman from engineering gave a good argument about what the value of the floodplain is. And floodplains are there for a reason, and I think that we have to take that into consideration when we make our vote. Okay, I'm ready to entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to recommend disapproval for V. 2012-63 Donnie and Don Crane's appeal for a variance to reduce the required floodplain setback from 25 feet to 4 feet in order to construct a detached garage in a single-family residential zone on property located at 2230 Harrods Point Trace, based on the staff's recommendation. and my personal opinion that those floodplain buffers are, they should be considered a sacred ground. All those in favor? Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? No. So it looks like the motion to disapprove passes. Moved. What was the count on the A's? How many? I didn't get, I didn't see who, oh, did you vote also? Four to one. Thank you. Okay. All right, and now the final matter is C-2012-59 Ryan Convoy. Are they still out in the hall? I'm looking for the applicant on the Ryan Convoy. I'm wondering if they are still out in the hallway. If you'll give us just a second, I'm sure we'll check on that for a moment. Okay. Thank you. Bill was looking downstairs to see if they had moved downstairs. The staff could give a presentation on this one if you so chose. I don't know. We don't see either the applicant or the opposition that was here. We can certainly try. We'll take a five-minute recess. I've never seen someone disappear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. this item is at the bottom of page 3 on your agenda. It's item C, 2012-59, Ryan Convoy. This is a conditional use request for an animal crematory in an AR zone on property located at 7001 Greenwich Pike. I do have some letters to pass out to the board. The first letter is a letter from Billy Van Pelt, the director of the Purchase of Development Rights Program, stating that the operation of the crematorium does not violate any of the PDR easements that are on this particular property. The staff has also received two letters in opposition and nine letters of support for this application. I'll pass those out to Mr. Stumbo now. Can you tell us who those letters are from? I have a letter, but I never got it to me. I don't know if you want. Okay. Well, you can present that when it's your time. The staff report on this one, I won't spend much time on this. I will just kind of go through some pictures for the board and the audience. This first picture is an aerial view. And Bill, if we can scooch that up or scoot it out just to see just a little bit more. The subject property is a total of two properties that make up a 92%. acre farm known as the Ridge Runner Farm. The application for the proposed crematorium is on a very small portion out of that 92 acres. The actual equipment itself only takes up 40 square feet. It's about 8 feet by 5 foot. And it's located, there is a barn on the subject property. This is Greenwich Pike and Hume Bedford Road. This property is on the far northeastern portion of Fayette County, very near the Bourbon County line. If you continue on Greenwich Pike, you will be in Bourbon County very shortly beyond this property. We can flip through the next picture. This is an overhead pictometry picture of the area with the barn, and the board can see that there is a farm road that separates this farm from the neighboring property. You can see that we measured from the location of the crematory machine, the adjacent property does have a house that's about 400 feet away from this machine. A particular notice to the staff, and it was noted in the staff report, the property owner of the adjoining property where that house is located, the closest house there at 400 feet, they have signed a letter saying that they were in support of the applicant's operation of the crematory. If we can flip through the... This is a picture of the end of the barn. Essentially, this machine, and whenever you see the pictures that the applicant has submitted, the location of the crematory machine is at the end of the barn. So when you see the pictures of it from the ground, that will give you a little bit of what you're looking at. If we can flip to the next couple of pictures. This is a picture submitted by the applicant. You can see the crematory machine located here. He said he parked the bobcat near it to give an idea of scale. That's a one-person bobcat there to give an idea of scale of the machine. If we can flip through the – there's just another view of the machine. This crematorium runs off of diesel fuel, and you can see what the staff assumes is the fuel tank next to the crematory. And the last picture is inside the barn that this is adjacent to. The applicant has built a large walk-in cooler inside the barn in which they'll be able to hold the animals inside the refrigerated unit until such time as they are cremated. The staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. We found we had, of course, a lot of questions with an animal crematorium, and we felt that the applicant has addressed those issues. In particular, wondering about the types of odors and smells, types of air quality issues, the applicant had submitted as a part of their application a letter from the Kentucky State EPA Department that states that the operation of this machine will not produce enough air pollutant particles to warrant even being permitted. although they do have as a part of their letter requirement that the amount of animals cremated and things of that nature be monitored. So is such time as that if the applicant's proposal were to increase beyond what he had proposed to the state EPA department that they would be able to reevaluate it to see if it did need an air quality permit for the subject property. The applicant is presented that they're essentially 99% of the animals that are cremated are horses for the subject property. He also runs Convoy Enterprises, and they pick up the animals from Fayette County and the surrounding counties, bring them to the crematorium, cremate them. When the staff called up and was interviewing the applicant and talked about these things, He did say that 99% of his clientele wished to get the ashes back after their animal has been cremated. The staff felt that this proposed use was also not going to create a nuisance to this or surrounding subject properties. and as we said in the report, this has been in operation for about two years. The applicant was unaware that the operation of the crematorium was a conditional use in the AR zone. When they applied for the purchase of development rights through the PDR program, it was then that the PDR program recognized that this was a conditional use on this farm and recommended that the applicant apply for and come in front of the board for approval. Now, although the staff cannot condone the operation of conditional use without the proper approval from the board, we did find it significant that there hasn't been any complaints about this use in the two years that it has been operating. The closest residential property is about 400 feet away. Just directly south, about a third of a mile away, is the Jimtown Rural Settlement, and there are also a number of residential properties on there that are about a third of a mile away. The staff felt that this proposed use, granting this proposed use, would not adversely affect this property or the subject property, All of the necessary public facilities are available. We are recommending approval subject to four conditions. The fourth condition being that they have a gravel farm road, and where the gravel farm road comes onto the public road of Greenwich Pike, we're asking that they install either asphalt, concrete, or a gravel pan, something to keep the gravel farm road from spilling out onto the public road, as we often do with many of our agricultural conditional uses, whenever we find a gravel farm road directly accessing a public road. The staff has recommended approval subject to these four conditions, and if you have any other questions for us, we'd be happy to answer them. And, of course, we'll be available throughout the hearing on this one. I know that the applicant is here and that there is opposition here also. Thank you. I have a question for staff before you leave. Has somebody from Kentucky Air Quality looked at this machine and the site as well to determine that the emissions won't be sufficient enough to require an emissions permit? Yes, and that was part of the applicant's application. The Division of Planning, our Metropolitan Planning Organization, also has an air quality planner, and he was looking at this application also, and he did not see anything to be concerned about with this application. The one, is it a residence that's about 400 feet away, or is that somebody else? The farm next door has what appears to be a residence on it that is about 400 feet away. Have we heard from that residence in any of these documents? I don't know who actually lives in that house, but the property owner for that farm is one of the property owners that submitted a letter stating that this was an acceptable, that they were in support of this application. Okay. Jimmy? Yes? What happens to large dead animals in Fayette County now? I believe that I'm certainly not an expert on that. The applicant would probably be able to answer that question more than I can. Are there any rules that regulate the disposal of dead stock in Fayette County? I do not know of any in particular, but condition number three on your staff report would be that the applicant will comply with all applicable state and federal regulations, not only regarding the operation of a crematorium, but including those for the transport of the dead animals in air quality. So we've tried to cover our bases because I am not an expert on what state and federal regulations might be out there. But we did feel that it was important that part of the board's approval make it clear that approval of this application today does not let them out of any other state or federal requirements. When you have a dead animal on your farm, should you worry about whether it died of something that could be transmitted to other animals, and so transporting it to a different part of the county would be a concern? That is a valid concern. I do not have any actual knowledge of how that would work. None of the staff? Of any regulations or anything on that. Does any of the staff have any knowledge about animal diseases? Okay, thank you. I have worked on a horse farm, and I have dealt with this, but at the time that I was there, state and federal regulations were not on the top of my head. Keeping my feet clean was my biggest concern at that point. Thank you. I'm sure that the applicant who is in the business might be able to answer some of your questions. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward now, please? Hello. Please state your name for the record. It's Ryan Conboy. Can you answer any of these questions? Yes, ma'am. I can answer all of them, I believe. Your first question is related to transporting animals. Let me back up for dead animal removal in Fayette County. The state veterinary's office, Dr. Stout's office, has license holders for people to remove deceased animals. My company, Conboy Enterprises, picks up most of the deceased animals in Fayette County. You guys used to have a contract with a company called Nation Brothers that received some county money in order to take care of a lot of the dead animal removal. and they've since gone out of business and they've quit providing that money to the county. In order to transport a deceased animal, you must have a license. You must have a piece of equipment that will transport that animal and not leak any type of fluids out of it or whatnot. You must keep it clean and so on and so forth, which is a license that we do carry. As far as proper procedures for disposing of an animal, KRS 257.160 states about five or six different options. The number one option is cremation. Another option is rendering, composting, or disposal on a certain type of landfill that has a liner. Currently, we use a couple of those different options as far as cremation as well as hauling animals to the landfill. and those are how the state recommends that they're disposed of. I'm not sure if you had some other questions. I was wondering about the worries that neighbors might have about communicable diseases. As far as transporting diseases from point A to point B, our trailers are daily sanitized as well. So cremating animals is the number one best solution if an animal did have a disease as far as eliminating those diseases by cremating them at a high temperature. Your end product is ashes, which is depleted of any bacteria or prions or any diseases that would be transmitted. How hot is the temperature? Sure. We run our machine anywhere from about 900 degrees to 1,500 degrees. Is it a grinder as well as a flame? I'm not sure. I want to know all the details, but I'm just curious. Sure. The machine is diesel-powered. It has a burner in the bottom of it with grates. You place an animal inside of it, turn the machine on, close the lid on it. It has a flame underneath the animal, underneath the grates, which creates the majority of the heat. You have your animal, and then above your animal you have a chimney, if you will, that goes into another chamber, which is an afterburner. There's an afterburner with another flame that burns at a similar temperature and burns off any residue or emissions that are coming out of the final product at the top of the machine. So it's a static process, not a dynamic process? I apologize, but I can't answer that question for you. The animal in the machine doesn't move? No, sir. It's not moved mechanically in any fashion? No, sir. Okay. The animal is stationary, as would be all crematoriums that I'm aware of anyway. So the only options that someone with a deceased animal has right now in Fayette County is the composting, right? No, ma'am. No? No? What current options do you have? As an animal owner, you have several options. You may bury your animal on your own property, and there are specifications that KRS has provided for that. You may compost your animal, which is a very good option in my opinion. You may have your animal cremated, or you may have your animal picked up by a licensed animal hauler who can then do all of those things or render the animal or take it to a landfill. So those are the legal options of what to do with a deceased animal. More questions. Just the statute, KRS 257-160, does that apply just to people that are permitted, or does it apply to a landowner himself? It applies to people that are permitted as well as landowners. Does it apply to a landfill operator as well? I don't know. I'm curious about the alternatives. If an animal owner loses an animal and it's taken to a landfill, who takes it to a landfill? You're in regards to transporting? Yeah. Who else besides you does that? There's several companies within the state. I think there's 10 or 15 companies in the state of Kentucky that are licensed with the state vets office. or is another option I believe, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the owner can transport their own animal. For example, if they took it to the diagnostic lab to have a necropsy done or if they took it to a landfill to have it disposed of. And so at the landfill, if cremation is not their choice and they elect to just send it to the landfill, is the animal just simply dumped in the landfill? The landfill is a couple of different landfills in the state that will allow deceased animals or permitted to have deceased animals. And they have a liner and they produce methane gas. And in doing that, they bury the animals in with the general garbage in the landfill. And they also emit gas that they burn off at the landfill, I believe. Okay. But it sounds to me like you're required. You have requirements, and it has to be sanitized, and you can't have any fluids, whereas if the animal owner is taking it off in his own transportation, then they're not under those requirements as you are. Is that correct? I think so. Yes, ma'am. Is there any other questions? Do you have any other comments, anything you want to add before we ask the comments? No, I think that's it. I think that we've done a good job with what we've been doing in the past two years, and of course we haven't had any complaints, nor are most of our neighbors aware, that we were operating a crematorium, which I think speaks a lot. I think that our business does a very good job and is very sanitary and take a lot of pride in what we do, and I think it's an asset to the community as a service that we provide, not only picking up and disposing of animals but giving another option as cremation for people who have horses as pets or special horses to special farms and things of that nature. So it's something that we enjoy doing for our customers, and I know a lot of customers really appreciate what we do, and we try to do a good job of it. Thank you. And before you go, the staff is recommended for conditions. Are you willing to abide by those conditions? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. If anyone wants to speak in opposition. Okay, so would you like to begin by giving your name for the record? Yes, I'm Charlene Horn, and I live, my farm's at 6922. Greenwich Pike and my brother and I also have a farm they actually adjoined and that address is 6978 Greenwich Pike. And you're speaking on behalf of him as well? Both farms, yes. My brother lives in Texas, that's where he resides, so he's kind of not in the loop as far as things go. I try to, you know, updating but it's It's not the same as being here. We just had some issues. Mr. Conboy was, you know, listened. He's a great listener. He gave a lot of answers, and I thought that was, you know, nice. I appreciated that because when you go out to your mailbox, at least in my case, and you get a letter like this, and, you know, suddenly you're informed that, you know, is the Animal Cremation Center across from your farm, naturally, you know, a lot of concerns come up in your mind. And so it's good to kind of talk about those and get some answers to those questions that naturally come up. So we talked about it. And like I say, we had a lot of questions. He gave us a lot of answers. but we still had some issues that we think maybe we need to talk about some more, and we just wanted to submit these to the council. Do you want to tell us what your concerns are? Yeah, I can just kind of quickly list these. One, is the city going to reduce taxes due to the lower property values that we feel appraisers will automatically do if our farm should come up for sale because, you know, this is what appraisers do. They kind of look around. They say, well, how is this farm in this location and that? And if the public, which they probably already know, realizes that, well, there's this animal crematorium across the street, you know, that I just think that there will be an automatic ooh response and they will not want to look further at the farms or they may not want to pay, you know, a valuable that would have been reasonable, you know, without this. And so that's one thing there. The second was pollution issues. The third was property values. The fourth was appraisal values. The fifth was ashes to landfill. The sixth was resolve or reconcile official permit application. And the seventh was oversight. We talked about fire and air quality. and my first response, I've always been a supporter of the PDR program. I've got this from way back in 2005, and it talks about the importance of the bluegrass region. It actually says here, the bluegrass is put on the watch list. if the area is declared one of the world's most endangered sites. And this is my main objection that I don't, you know, I know that the animal crematoriums have, you know, benefits, as we talked about. You know, if we didn't have them, there'd be more landfill and different issues there. So it does address some issues. However, there's 17 counties in the PDR program that surround Fayette County. And it's my thinking that the animal crematorium should be better put outside the 17-county area that's PDR, that is most in danger. that there's other places that are just as good for what crematoriums do, but they're not in this very special category. I mean, they, I just can't press it. Anybody that wants a copy of this can look at it, that we really need to preserve this area. And, of course, we all work very hard. I was saying my own farm, I've got work still to do. I have great renters. If it weren't for them, you know, I couldn't get it all done. So this is what we talked about. I had some just concerns. My biggest concern is I think there's some issue that needs to be resolved with the permit application because they threw possibly a miscommunication back in 2010 when Mr. Convoy first applied for the permit in December. They have put, for one reason or another, they have called it a pet incinerator. They have not called it a large animal incinerator. In my opinion, pets are more like 40-pound animals, not 1,000 or 2,000-pound animals. And I just think for the record, before anything is approved in a permanent way, that this should just be resolved. And they have included 3KAR regulations that they kind of suggested could apply. to Mr. Convoy's application. They do say in the last paragraph, because what they concluded that this was a small animal incinerator, not a large animal, they said, well, because of this, you don't need additional regulations. But they did say it does not exempt your proposal from other regulatory requirements of federal, state, or local agencies that may have regulations that apply, such as Fayette County. So I just think for the record that it's important to clear that up before any official steps are taken. And if you want me to, I can submit this. But we've talked about most things. I don't think, one thing that kind of concerned me was Jimtown, community of Jimtown, which is right across from our farm. Got a beautiful church there. They got, I'm not sure exactly how many houses and mobile homes. About six years ago, I was up there, I kind of drove around in my head. I think I counted 17 residents. I think there's probably more now. But they're actually closer. Well, there's one home that's practically directly across and to the left of where the incinerator is. But other than that, the gym town community is pretty close. They actually share a fence line. And so you have kids there. You have different adults. who come and go Sundays. You know, you have churches, church services. You might have singings, prayer meetings on Friday nights. You might have funerals. So you have, you know, the public is in and out also. And I think this is where the owners, if you're downwind from that, you know, maybe there might be an issue there. There might be an issue for people that might have preexisting conditions. And I don't know about that. I'm not a doctor or anything else. But myself, I don't live at the farm. I have renters. But I'm in and out quite frequently. Like I say, my brother, he's not really affected. But that's all I have to say. If anyone has any questions. Can you see this operation from your farm? Not real well. I didn't actually, I had no idea that it was even back there. You know, like I say, I have a lot of stuff going on in my mind about my own property taking care of that. And I think once I saw that diagram, there's a large barn that kind of blocks the view. You'd think it's any other typical farm operation unless you know it's back there. And I thought that this was really good, the pictures that was put in there. And I just actually had about 19 days, and four days of it was weekends. But the diagram was very helpful. I mean, when you see this, where our farm, my farm, is right here. Gemtown is right there. Can you speak into the mic? Yeah. My farm is right here. Gemtown is over here. So they're right next to Mr. Convoy's farm. And then my brother and my farm, we're right here. So the black area is the area in question. Then they break this down. If you look here, see that's pretty far away, and it's sandwiched between a 15-bent barn. That's a large, that's a very large barn. these pictures just speak a thousand words. I mean, in my mind, when I was reading this before we met, I was thinking of something like a concrete swimming pool that was buried, you know, in the earth. But it's not. This is actually above ground. And I'm supposed it can be transported if you need it to. Or you would have to load it on something. It's a great big thing. Here's some more pictures. This is the cooler inside where he stores the dead carcasses as he brings them in. I think he said you pick up about four at a time. It just depends, but they're stored here. And as he has a load, I guess, he brings them out. The aerial view, this is why pictures are so important and getting answers are so important. Because the more answers I get, actually, I have a little bit less anxiety. Because when I was seeing this big semi parked outside, in my mind, he's bringing them in by semi loads, which is not the case. He might be bringing them in by pickup loads, which, you know, that lowers my anxiety a little bit. Not to discount any of your concerns, I can understand where your head is, but it does speak volumes that he's been in business for two years, and you've never seen a plume of black smoke, and you've never had an aroma, and you've never even known it was there. And see, I don't live there. Oh, don't you? I live in Clark County. Tenants have never mentioned anything, do you? I've never heard them mention it. Well, I really appreciate you sharing your concerns with us. And I think you can take some comfort from the third condition that says that the applicant shall comply with any applicable state and federal regulations regarding operations of an animal crematorium, including the transport of dead animals and air quality regulations. So this does, in fact, cover your concerns, and no matter what we say, he's still required to comply with other laws that regulate it. Right. I guess my biggest issue is that, you know, I feel so strongly for PDR in the case. I mean, I majored in history when I was in college in social science. So, I mean, I was already there in my mind and in my head to preservation and the importance of, you know, historical. And my understanding is that he has received a letter saying that this use is consistent with the PDR. That's the first letter that we saw. And I also see it as he's providing a service which allows the people who want to live in the agricultural zone and farm and have animals, He's providing a necessary service to support that, and that's how I view it. Yeah, it's on different levels. This is what I'm seeing. But the first level, when I got the letter, when people I showed the letter to, it's that gut feeling that, ooh, you know, this is a terrible thing. that my father, who was an agriculture teacher, he actually taught adult farmers how to farm for decades. He invested so much, you know, and I really don't think that, I really don't think he would have liked it. And that's why, but I mean, he probably, I'm sure, does his job. But that's why I think it would be better put outside this area, just because this area is so special. And if there was some kind of terrible problem, one of the issues was, one of my biggest concerns was the water quality issue. We just got through doing a $6,000 renovation of a well that's been on a farm since the 1980s. and we did get $3,000 back from the CAIP program to help us. My first thing, we just put this in March and April. Is our groundwater now going to be affected? And so I was pleasantly surprised to learn that, no, it's not supposed to affect the groundwater. I mean, you just don't know. You go ahead and you try to do these planned projects you think is going to be a benefit, it, but then you get that letter in the mail, and it's a little scary until you get looking into the facts. So this is a great big barn, tobacco barn. We know how the tobacco crops have suffered for a while, and so he's putting that to good use. Thank you very much. That's one good use for that. And, I mean, that's my only concern. I think if this was in a non-PDR area, it would be great. You know, it's just that that's my natural instinct is to protect the farmland, just as I would try the historical homes and stuff like that. Thank you. Did you want to come forward as well? Yes. My name's Benny Oaks. I'm a neighbor of Conway there. I'm on Ferguson Road, and I'm a little bit further than Jimtown, but there's probably 17 or 20 residents real, real close to this incinerator. and my biggest question is how many in this room would like to have something right next door to them that closed within say 400 feet, some 800 feet away. You know, you wouldn't like that very much at all. You wouldn't like it for your property values and you wouldn't like it for the possibility of a smell. And he reported that he hadn't had any complaints. We've had some complaints that I know from other neighbors that have a smell in that area, but I didn't know who to report it to. I didn't know where it was coming from. And I searched all over the neighborhood trying to find somebody burning garbage or something like that, but I didn't see anything until I found out what he was doing. So I wish you'd take that into consideration on this matter. We have attached, if you all see fit to pass this, we have conditions that she laid out that I think he has agreed to, conditions. But we strongly urge turning down this proposal because that would be the best thing for our community. Thank you. Do you want to go ahead and give us the conditions then? I'm sure just looking at these conditions, is the city going to reduce taxes? And obviously that's where we have no control over that. Pollution issues, I think that that's already been addressed in one of the conditions. You know, property values, appraisal values, those are out of our purview as well. The ashes to the landfill, we've been told that the ashes are already returned to the owners. And then resolving the official permit application, is there anything that can be done about the official permit application? I think Ms. Korn's question was regarding, it said it was going to be a pet insinuator. pet instead of a large animal. And that came from the state, so I don't know if that's relevant to this application or not, Jimmy. I believe from a local zoning perspective, today's conditional use hearing in front of the board will deal with the local zoning ordinance. And also on there, we were asking for a follow-up on testing, like once a year, to make sure this incinerator is operating at peak conditions because if the temperature gauge is off or they're not reaching the proper temperature, it's not going to do an adequate job. That was the last one that I was going to read, the oversight, the test to ensure that there's clean burning. And I don't know, Mr. Marks, maybe that's a question for you. Is there anything that can be done there? As far as what was it, clean burning? Yeah, he asked if there could be some kind of oversight, some testing. I think the most that we could do would be to get more details about the other regulatory agencies and get them plugged in to see what checkups they could do on their end. We're saying that this incinerator, you know, as things get older, they could have a faulty in some of the gauges, or if it's not reaching the proper temperature, it wouldn't be doing an adequate job. So we were asked that that would be a requirement. I have a question for the applicant, then. Does this type of equipment have to be certified or licensed? We can take a stab at it. I'm not sure how far we'd get with, you know, we obviously don't have expertise in that, so we'd have to rely on the other regulatory agencies. The letter which I can submit to the board members that was submitted for them, the Kentucky Division of Air Quality, does state in here that the fuel usage rates and materials throughout the incinerator shall be monitored and recorded respectively on a monthly basis. They can proceed with the project described in the submittal without a permit from this division at this time, but it does need to be done in accordance with it as it was submitted and maintained and operated in a manner that will assure continued compliance with the applicable regulations. That's what the staff had mentioned in our staff report, that the Division of Air Quality, they put in their permit approval that it shall be monitored and everything of that nature. I would be happy to pass this letter out to the Board. So, Jimmy, what you're saying, is that applicable to item three, then the applicant shows comply with any applicable state and federal regulations regarding the operation of animal cremature, including those for transport and air quality regulations. Does that cover that? Yes, sir, it does. And additionally, as all conditional uses, it will be monitored within every year and looked at to ensure that it's compliant with the Board's conditions of approval. And if at any such time that it's not, then we could bring it back to the Board for a revocation hearing should there be a problem with compliance with those conditions. Would it be worthwhile to include an additional express condition that they reapply and update so that it's clear that they're operating a large animal crematorium? I mean, I know presumably that's within three, but if we set it explicitly, it might make it easier to make sure that it's monitored. Certainly we can draft that as a condition that they get that, provide documentation from the state that they can operate it in that fashion. We'll draft that. And just for clarification, Jimmy, there's some sort of regulatory in existence, some vehicle that this machine will be tested yearly, or if that's not the case, would it be a good idea for us to put a condition that, yes, it is inspected yearly by a person who's qualified to assess if it's operating at peak efficiency? Relying on the letter from the Division of Air Quality, they were stating that records would be kept to ensure that he is operating the facility just as he has submitted to them. uh... the i'm not as i mentioned earlier i'm not an expert on these things but uh... what we would look at would be to contact the division of air quality whenever we as mr marsh was saying whenever it was did come time for us to check up on this conditional use we would check with the division of air quality and those contacts that are in the file and see if there are any issues that need to be brought forward to the board's attention. Another thing that's important, and I did meet with Mrs. Horn earlier this week. She came into the office. And one of the things that the staff pointed out, and I pointed out for everybody's benefit, the number one condition is that if approved, this animal crematoria will be operated in accordance with the submitted application. If the board does approve this today, this does not give carte blanche for him to go in and start putting in more crematory machines and start upping his operation beyond what he has submitted and what's before you today for approval. If he wanted to do that, the appropriate mechanism would be to come back before the board and ask for an increase in the scope of his operation beyond what he is asking for today. That's just for everybody's. Does the application explicitly say that he does about four animals a day? The application does not say how many animals today, but it is quite clear in this application that it is the one machine and that he has the cooler inside where he stores the animals. All of those types of things that have been presented today are actually quite clear in the application. Thank you. One more note for you in opposition. You can always call if you think there's a problem over there with odors or with smoke, code enforcement, and there will be a record that he's out of compliance. If you can produce a record that he's not operating this as he's supposed to, then we would want to know about it and we'd take corrective action. Okay. That point is very important that we have a follow-up on testing this incinerator. That's very important because, like I said, things happen and equipment wears out and gets old and rusty and stuff like that. So that's very important to us. If it becomes a nuisance, you should make some calls. Thank you. We will. Are you here in opposition as well? My name is Joe Stewart. My property backs up to the applicant here. You all have addressed most of our concerns that we all, we three, had put together to ask. There's one thing, my wife used to work a facility on Newtown Pike for vellinarists, done the same kind of, and she is concerned about the odor that it gave off. Now I understand that he's been in operation for two years and no one was aware of it. We didn't know anything about that, but we do get a slight odor every now and then, but we don't know, can't say where it's coming from. but we are slightly opposed to the facility. I thank you. Thank you. I have one additional thought. I wonder if we should schedule this for a six-month or a 12-month review or no. The board can certainly do that. While I've got my microphone on, we were handed one additional letter of support during the hearing, so I'll pass that out to the board also for the record. While that's being passed out, I've got a question for the applicant, just things that came up during the conversation. How do you charge for a disposal? Is it by the weight? For what? I'm sorry. How do you charge for your services? We charge by if we're going to pick the animal up, how far we have to go. If we're disposing of the animal, it's by size. And if we're cremating a horse, it's whether it's a large horse or a small horse, basically. How long does the process take? In order to cremate, a 1,000-pound horse takes about eight hours, seven or eight hours. Okay, so you physically or literally cannot operate more than about four a day? No, realistically you couldn't operate more than one a day. I should expand on that. It takes about seven or eight hours to cremate a 1,000-pound animal. However, the machine heats up to 1,500 degrees. It takes another 12 hours for the machine to cool down enough to remove the animal. so it's impossible to do more than one a day or one every other day. And then there's factors of weather. If it's raining outside, you wouldn't want to take the ashes out and get them wet and things like that. We do about an animal a week. We do probably 50 animals a year somewhere in that neighborhood, maybe a little bit more than that. But realistically, if we ran nonstop, we couldn't cremate more than, I don't know, 200 animals a year with that machine, which we wouldn't. Our amount of cremations haven't increased or decreased since we started. There's a lot of concern about keeping your machine fine-tuned, and I know that if it's not tuned up, it'll be inefficient. and you'll be burning more diesel fuel than you'd like to. But it sounds like there's a way to monitor the amount of fuel. You're monitoring temperature. You're monitoring fuel flow. Is there no one that keeps an eye on that for you, or are you a mechanic? Don't you have it serviced once a year by some professional? Well, being a farmer, I guess we're all self-proclaimed mechanics. However, I am very knowledgeable of the machine and the mechanics of how it works. the machine basically requires two things fuel and air to operate and there's a little bit of adjustment with that which from time to time we do adjust but as far as having someone come out and work on it if need to be the case we could certainly have that done but we haven't been in a position that we've needed to have someone come service it or have the manufacturer come service it or whatnot. Well, this might be an oversimplification, but I know if my barbecue grill isn't working right, I'm not getting the results I need, I'm going to replace it or fix it. And you just wouldn't leave it not working for a long time. Absolutely not. We monitor it hourly as it's operating to make sure it's performing the best. It burns somewhere between six and ten gallons an hour. So you start adding up dollars and you wash them pretty closely. Well, I have confidence that this is going to be okay, but we're also counting on you to monitor it. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Are there any other comments? I would be agreeable to a review along with you, Madam Chair. We can certainly draft that. Would the board prefer six months or one year? What would you prefer, six months or one year? Sure, you may submit any comments. I think what we'll do is schedule a regular review, which will give you an opportunity. If it turns out to be a real problem, it will be easier to discuss it at that point. Speak a little louder. I said, we will schedule a review where it's specifically designed to talk about this, and you'll have a chance to bring up any concerns. And so it can be either six months or 12 months. Do you have any preference? 12 months? Okay, let's go ahead and schedule a 12-month review. And as long as there are no problems, then what will happen is building inspection will report there have been no problems. It sounds like the fill in the blank on number 6 would be 12 months. That's right. Madam Chair, I'd like to move that C-2012-59 Ryan Convoy appeals for a conditional use permit to establish an animal crematory and ag rural zone at 7001 Greenwich Pike be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff, including that number six this case shall be reviewed by the board 12 months after approval I'll second all those in favor please say aye aye opposed thank you good luck thank you okay then I guess we have staff item next I guess the one staff item is the Southside Pub. Is that right, Mr. Emmons? Yes. Okay. Yeah, this Southside Pub was approved a little over two years ago by this board for live entertainment. They are not complying with two of the conditions that are outlined in the memo that I sent out to you. One being that live entertainment is not supposed to be on Sundays, and they've been having it on Sundays. And the other is that it's not supposed to be outdoors, and they've also been having it outdoors. So they're clearly in violation of two of the conditions. Unfortunately, they have not been very responsive to our requests for information or going back to the board to amend the conditions. So we pretty much don't have any choice but to provide you with the information and request a revocation hearing for October 26th. Thank you. There's nothing we need to do on that. Do we need to? Yes. What you would need to do is vote to schedule a revocation hearing on this case for the October 26th hearing. Is there a time, is there a notice period for scheduling a revocation hearing? In this case, the outside pub would have to get notified, but we're well within that time frame. How much notice do they get? Mr. Clever, I believe it's 21 days. I am. I believe it's 21. 21? Okay. Thank you. Okay. All those in favor of scheduling a revocation hearing, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. It's scheduled. All right. The next meeting will be October 26, 2012. And if there's no further business, we'll... I think there was a... We were going to... It's not in the schedule, so we can talk about it now and do it next month. Okay. Okay. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you.