# Board of Adjustment Meeting - November 30, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 30, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2777 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2777?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-11-30 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 6,663 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on November 30, 2012, at 1:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Barry Stumbo presided over the meeting, which included seven agenda items. The board took 11 motions and votes during the session and heard 10 public comments. The meeting covered routine business including attendance, approval of previous minutes, consideration of postponement or withdrawal of scheduled business, and informational items regarding staff matters and the next meeting date. ## Attendance **Present:** James Griggs, Thomas Glover, Noel White, Joe Smith, Barry Stumbo, Jim Gallimore, Chuck Saylor, Jim Marx, Tracy Jones, Jimmy Emmons, Bill Sallee, and Wanda Howard **Absent:** Kathryn Moore and Janice Meyer **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during the November 30, 2012 meeting passed unanimously with five votes in favor and zero votes against or abstaining. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:01:00] The minutes from the September 28, 2012 meeting were approved. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Noel White. All five members voted in favor: James Griggs, Thomas Glover, Noel White, Joe Smith, and Barry Stumbo. **Administrative Review Postponement** [timestamp: 0:04:11] A-2012-45 (Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association administrative review) was indefinitely postponed. Motion by Noel White, seconded by James Griggs. **Variance V-2012-79** [timestamp: 0:08:10] Approved a variance for Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC to reduce sign setback from 10 feet to 1 foot in the P-1 zone at 225 Ruccio Way. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover. Conditions included compliance with submitted plans, obtaining necessary permits from Planning and Building Inspection, and review by Traffic Engineering prior to sign permit issuance. **Variance V-2012-80** [timestamp: 0:12:33] Approved variances for Ralph Senninger to reduce front yard from 50 feet to 15 feet and rear yard from 25 feet to 5 feet in the A-R zone at 8839 Beach Road. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover. Conditions required development according to submitted plans and obtaining applicable permits. **Conditional Use Permits** - **C-2012-76** [timestamp: 0:15:24]: Approved for Ideal Exchange, Inc. to operate a pawn shop in B-3 zone at 510 E. New Circle Road, Suite 180. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Noel White. Conditions included landscape buffer compliance, prohibition on outdoor merchandise display, and restriction on firearm sales without amended approval. - **C-2012-74** [timestamp: 0:17:02]: Approved for Four Seasons Martial Arts/Colleen O'Donnell to establish an athletic club in I-1 zone at 951 Floyd Drive. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joe Smith. - **C-2012-77** [timestamp: 0:26:19]: Approved for Bluegrass Regional Mental Health to establish an assisted living facility in B-6P zone at 3479 Buckhorn Drive. Motion by Noel White, seconded by Thomas Glover. - **C-2012-78** [timestamp: 0:28:24]: Approved for Total Grace Baptist Church to establish a child care facility in R-3 zone at 1313 N. Limestone Street. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover. Conditions included relocation of outdoor play area, traffic engineering review of student drop-off procedures, and limitation to 50 children total. **Administrative Review Continuation** [timestamp: 0:30:01] A-2012-62 (Division of Building Inspection permit for paving in front yard at 626 Kastle Road) was continued. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by James Griggs. **Committee Reappointment** [timestamp: 0:31:39] Mike Cravens was reappointed to the Landscape Review Committee for a four-year term. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover. **Revocation Hearing** [timestamp: 0:50:11] A revocation hearing was scheduled for C-90-45 (Con Robinson Contracting Company, Inc.). Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover. ## Public Comment The meeting included public comment on multiple development and conditional use applications, with representatives speaking in support of various proposals. **Variance Requests** Tony Barrett, representing Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC, spoke in support of variance V-2012-79 regarding sign setback requirements [timestamp: 0:07:35]. He stated agreement with staff recommendations and conditions, emphasizing the need for improved visibility and safety. Matt Carter, representing Ralph Senninger, addressed variance V-2012-80 [timestamp: 0:09:18]. He confirmed agreement with staff conditions and explained that the proposed home would be only slightly larger than the previous structure, with variances necessary due to the lot's unique configuration. **Conditional Use Permits** Rich Coppersmith, representing Ideal Exchange, Inc., spoke in support of conditional use C-2012-76 [timestamp: 0:13:41]. He confirmed agreement with six conditions, including landscaping requirements and prohibition on outdoor sales, and clarified the location of required hedges. Gary Thompson, representing Four Seasons Martial Arts, addressed conditional use C-2012-74 [timestamp: 0:16:26]. He confirmed agreement with two conditions and stated the facility would generate minimal traffic. Steven Garrison, representing Bluegrass Regional Mental Health, spoke in support of conditional use C-2012-77 [timestamp: 0:19:05]. He explained the supervised nature of the program, its compliance with state licensing, and addressed neighbor concerns about resident behavior and safety. David Haydon, also representing the organization, provided additional regulatory information [timestamp: 0:22:56], confirming the program is licensed by the Kentucky Department of Behavioral Health and accredited by the Joint Commission, with tri-annual inspections. Sherrod LaDette, representing Total Grace Baptist Church, addressed conditional use C-2012-78 [timestamp: 0:27:21]. He confirmed agreement with all four conditions, including relocating the outdoor play area and managing drop-off and pick-up traffic. **Administrative Matters** Richard Murphy requested an indefinite postponement of administrative review appeal A-2012-45 [timestamp: 0:02:00], representing the property owner at 1713 Nicholasville Road. He cited ongoing negotiations and the desire to avoid repeated legal advertisements. Jimmy Emmons presented a staff recommendation to continue administrative review A-2012-62 [timestamp: 0:28:56] due to the absence of appellants and Building Inspection representatives. Jim Marx presented staff findings regarding conditional use permit C-90-45 [timestamp: 0:33:17], recommending a revocation hearing based on evidence that Con Robinson Contracting Company was operating a quarry under the guise of composting, violating the original permit. ## Appointments Mike Cravens was reappointed to the Landscape Review Committee. ## Contested Items **Authority to Grant Indefinite Postponement** Mr. Glover questioned whether the Board possessed the authority to grant an indefinite postponement of an appeal. Staff affirmed that this action had precedent, with the critical condition that the applicant would need to be re-notified if the appeal were to be re-docketed in the future. [timestamp information not provided in source data] **Precedent Concerns for V-2012-80 Variance** A heated discussion arose regarding the V-2012-80 variance when Mr. Griggs expressed concern about setting a precedent by allowing the enlargement of a non-conforming structure. Staff clarified an important distinction: the structure in question was non-conforming, but the use was not. Staff further explained that the lot's particular configuration made it impossible to construct without variances, addressing the concern that approval would create problematic precedent for future cases. [timestamp information not provided in source data] **Legal Authority to Revoke Conditional Use Permit** The Board engaged in a heated debate over the legal soundness of revoking a 22-year-old composting permit based on alleged quarrying activity occurring on the property. Staff asserted that the Board had authority to revoke the permit, arguing that the quarrying activity constituted a misuse of the land and a violation of the original conditions under which the composting permit had been granted. The core disagreement centered on whether the alleged new activity sufficiently violated the permit's terms to justify revocation of a long-standing authorization. [timestamp information not provided in source data] ## Attendance Chair Barry Stumbo called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. [timestamp: 00:00]. Five members were present at the meeting, while two members were absent. Staff and other officials were also in attendance. ## Approval of Minutes The minutes from the September 28, 2012 meeting were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:01:00] James Griggs moved to approve the minutes, and Noel White seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. ## Postponement or Withdrawal of Scheduled Business [timestamp: 00:04:11] The Board considered a motion to indefinitely postpone item A-2012-45. Noel White made the motion, which was seconded by James Griggs. The postponement was requested due to ongoing negotiations between the property owner and the neighborhood association. The Board unanimously approved the request to postpone the item indefinitely. Key speakers on this matter included Noel White, James Griggs, Richard Murphy, and Jimmy Emmons. **Outcome:** Item A-2012-45 was postponed indefinitely. ## No Discussion Items [timestamp: 04:42] Jimmy Emmons presented the no-discussion items to the Board. The Board confirmed that all items listed as no-discussion items had staff recommendations, appellant agreement, and no objections. This confirmation allowed for immediate action on these items without requiring debate or further discussion. The outcome was approved. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 00:30:31] Staff presented two items during this portion of the meeting. **Reappointment to Landscape Review Committee** Staff presented the reappointment of Mike Cravens to the Landscape Review Committee. This item was presented for informational purposes. **Revocation Hearing Request** Staff also presented a request for a revocation hearing regarding C-90-45. The request was prompted by alleged unauthorized quarrying operations. This matter was presented for informational purposes. Key speakers on these staff items included Jimmy Emmons and Jim Marx. ## Next Meeting Date Barry Stumbo announced that the next meeting would be held on December 14, 2012. This date was scheduled two weeks earlier than the usual meeting schedule to accommodate the Christmas holiday. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Barry Stumbo after all agenda items had been addressed. [timestamp: 50:41] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approve minutes of September 28, 2012 meeting - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Indefinitely postpone A-2012-45: Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association administrative review - **V-2012-79** — passed (5-0): Approve variance for Independent Healthcare Properties, LLC to reduce sign setback from 10’ to 1’ in P-1 zone at 225 Ruccio Way - **V-2012-80** — passed (5-0): Approve variances for Ralph Senninger to reduce front yard from 50’ to 15’ and rear yard from 25’ to 5’ in A-R zone at 8839 Beach Road - **C-2012-76** — passed (5-0): Approve conditional use permit for Ideal Exchange, Inc. to operate a pawn shop in B-3 zone at 510 E. New Circle Road, Suite 180 - **C-2012-74** — passed (5-0): Approve conditional use permit for Four Seasons Martial Arts / Colleen O'Donnell to establish athletic club in I-1 zone at 951 Floyd Drive - **C-2012-77** — passed (5-0): Approve conditional use permit for Bluegrass Regional Mental Health to establish assisted living facility in B-6P zone at 3479 Buckhorn Drive - **C-2012-78** — passed (5-0): Approve conditional use permit for Total Grace Baptist Church to establish child care facility in R-3 zone at 1313 N. Limestone Street - **A-2012-62** — passed (5-0): Continue administrative review of Division of Building Inspection’s permit for paving in front yard at 626 Kastle Road - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Reappoint Mike Cravens to Landscape Review Committee for four-year term - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Schedule revocation hearing for C-90-45: Con Robinson Contracting Company, Inc. --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. I think our first item of business is our minutes from the September 28th meeting. If the members have a chance to take a look at those. I move we approve those minutes. Second. A motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. I'd like to ask if there are any withdrawals or postponements. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy on page 4, item E1A, 2012-45, Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association. Of course, I've postponed this before you before. This is an appeal by the Neighborhood Association. I represent the property owner on this one, not the association. We are continuing to work together. It's just we're doing plans and sending them back and forth, and it takes time to make decisions on those things. So at Mr. Emmons' suggestion, we are asking for an indefinite postponement, which means it won't have to be continuously advertised, but the association can ask for it to come back before you at any time and be put on the next board of adjustment hearing date on that. So on behalf of the request of John Grant, who's the attorney for the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association, and myself, attorney for physician services, the property owner, we're asking for an indefinite postponement of that case. The planning staff would also like to add that I have received an email from Mr. Grant requesting the indefinite postponement of this application, meaning that when the Neighborhood Association is ready to bring this back before the board, they'll contact the staff, and we will make sure that the appropriate notice goes out and get them on the next available Board of Adjustment agenda. Mr. John Grant is not only an attorney, but he is also the president of the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association, and not only did I receive an email, but I had a nice long conversation with him last night on the telephone. We recommended an indefinite postponement because the applicant and the property owner continued to work out their differences on this application, but rather than continue it on a month-to-month-to-month postponement, this seemed like a more appropriate approach. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Mr. Emmons, I've got a question. Do we have the authority to grant an indefinite postponement? Yes, sir, you do. The board in the past has granted indefinite postponements. The most important thing will be that should the Cherokee Park Neighborhood Association wish to bring this back forward, we will make sure that all of the notice goes back out and everything is properly notified at that time. Very good. Any other questions? If there's no other questions, we'll entertain a motion. I so move. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. we'll go ahead and sound the agenda if there's any opposition to any of the items on the agenda we will take those second those without opposition we will address those first item c 2012 49 independent health care properties as their representative here is there any opposition mr chairman uh just a slight correction there You've got an old agenda there. The correct one is V-2012-79 for independent health care properties. Just a quick correction on that for record-keeping purposes. Thank you, sir. So no one in opposition? Okay. Okay. Second item is V-201280, Ralph Sinninger. Is the applicant here? Is there anyone in opposition? Item C-201274, Four Seasons Martial Arts, Colleen O'Donnell. Is the representative here? Is there any opposition? item c201276 ideal exchange is there representative any opposition to c201276 c201277 bluegrass regional mental health is their representative here is there any opposition to c201277 item c-2012-78 total grace baptist church is that representative here yes sir is there anyone in opposition very good the others are the administrative reviews we will start with item v-2012-79 independent health care properties would you please come forward Mr. Stumbo, as he's coming forward, the staff would like to note that all of the properties, all of the items on your agenda today that needed a sign posted have been posted, and all of the notice went out. In addition, because of the December 14th meeting in two weeks, if there is a need to postpone or continue any items today, it will need to go to the January meeting because we've already passed the legal ad deadline for the December meeting. Thank you, Mr. A Couple of Thoughts. Would you state your name for the record? I'm Tony Barrett here on behalf of Independent Health Cares. Yes, Tony. Tony, you've got an appeals for a variance to reduce the required setback from the right-of-way for an identification sign from 10 feet to 0 feet in professional office zone at 225 Russo Way. Would you like to go ahead and state your case? We're in agreement with the conditions and recommendation of the staff report, and I just ask for your approval. And the three conditions? Does anybody from the board have any questions for Mr. Barrett? Mr. Chairman, the staff would like to point out the request was a variance request from 10 feet to 0 feet. The staff has recommended a modification from 10 feet to 1 foot. for this staff report. Very good. Is that acceptable? Yes. All right. Anybody? Very good. If I hear nothing further, I'd like to hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we approve the appeal of independent health care properties, V-2012-79, for a variance to reduce the required setback from the right-of-way for an identification sign from 10 feet to 1 foot in a professional office zone at 2025. Thank you. Roushio Way, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to their three conditions. Very good. Do I hear a second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Beard. Thank you. Item V-201280, Ralph Sinninger, come forward. State your name. My name is Matt Carter, and I'm here to represent the applicant. Very good. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to those conditions? Yes, we're in agreement with the two conditions. Very good. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? I have a question. The footprint of the house is, did it have a two-car garage before? It did not. It did not have a garage before. So the footprint is larger now than the original 1,800 square foot? Yes, it's a little bit larger. Okay. And staff, you're confident that this isn't setting a bad precedent. The garage was never mentioned in the staff report. There was a parking area for two cars. in the area of the garage, but it will be under cover under the garage. Since this property was demolished due to a fire that was there, as a nonconforming structure, it could be built back volumetrically to the same volume that was there, but in order to enlarge the structure, they are asking for a slight enlargement. In order to enlarge the structure, the variances are necessary in this particular case. I do not believe that the two-car garage will make a major difference in this particular application. We did look at that in particular because it is part of a rural settlement, the Clay's Ferry rural settlement, and the comprehensive plan recommends that the overall massing of the buildings remain the same. This is not a McMansion going in or anything of that nature. It's actually a fairly standard-sized home. Well, the reason I'm questioning you about this is that we hold such a hard line on not allowing nonconforming uses to be enlarged. I mean, we hold that strictly most of the time. And the staff would hold that this is a nonconforming structure due to the setbacks on this particular piece of property. If the board grants the setback variances that are requested today, it will no longer be a nonconforming structure. This particular lot is very small compared to other 40-acre lots. It's about a third of an acre, and it's an odd configuration. Whenever you apply the current setbacks, literally they come to a point on the property. There is no buildable area on this under the current setback rules. Also, Mr. Griggs, I would add this is not a nonconforming use. You are correct. The Board does not allow expansions of nonconforming use. The use is conforming. Yeah, I see the difference now. This is different from a conditional use. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve Ralph V. 2012-80. Ralph Sieninger's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 50 feet to 15 feet and to reduce the required rear yard from 25 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a single-family residence in the agricultural zone at 8839 Beach Road as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions as recommended by staff. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Item C-2012-76, Ideal Exchange. Is the applicant here? Come forth, please. I'm sorry. We'll go ahead with Ideal Exchange. I skipped over Four Seasons March, August. But you're up here. Go ahead and state your name for the record. My name is Rich Coppersmith. Very good. Rich, you've got an appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a pawn shop in a highway service business zone at 510 East New Circle Road, Suite 180. The staff has recommended approval subject to six conditions. Do you agree with those conditions? Yes, we do. Very good. Does anybody from the committee have a question? Anything, Mr. Ammons? If not, we'll entertain a motion. I'd like to clarify one thing. You're asking for shrubs in the back area along the fence. Is that correct? It is the zone-to-zone screening requirements, which would typically require a fence, a hedge, and a tree once every 40 feet. Okay. The hedge, is that to be our space or the entire property? uh since this is a this is the end unit the the staff was from their unit to the end of the property but not the entire property the condition was not intended to go beyond the bounds from their their end unit to the edge of the property okay but not the entire development okay also if i could clarify the rear of the property abuts a residential zone The screening requirement is a fence or a hedge at the applicant's choice and trees every 40 feet. There's already a fence in place. Okay. So is that? That would satisfy the rear. Along the side, the requirement is for hedges and trees because it's a parking lot. On the side also. Yes. And that, if there are any hedges there, those could be applied to that screen. But it was mostly the vehicular on the side. Okay. Great. Okay. All set. Anybody from the board? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2012-76 Ideals Exchange, Inc. appeals for a conditional use permit to operate a pawn shop in a highway service business zone at 510 East New Circle Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the six conditions. Thank you. Mr. Griggs, do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Good luck. I actually passed over item C-2012-74, Four Seasons Martial Arts. Colleen O'Donnell, is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Come on forward and state your name for the record. Gary Thompson. Mr. Thompson, the staff has recommended approval subject to the following two conditions. Do you agree to those conditions? Yes, I do. Okay. Does the board have any questions? Jimmy, anything? Okay. Well, then we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve C-2012-74 Four-Season Martial Arts slash Colleen O'Donnell's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish an athletic club facility in a light industrial zone at 951 Floyd Drive for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions of staff. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do we have a second? Second. Go ahead. Mr. Smith, second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion is approved. Good luck. Thank you. Item C, 2012-77, Bluegrass Regional Mental Health. Appeals for conditional use permit to establish assisted living facility in Planned Shopping Center at 3479 Buckhorn. Would you state your name for the record, sir? Steve Garrison, Bluegrass Regional. Steve, the staff has recommended approval subject to the two conditions. Do you agree to those two conditions? Yes, I do. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I had just passed out. We have received two letters in opposition to this one request, and so I just passed those out to the board members just now. I also ran copies of them and gave them to the applicant just shortly before the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Amos. Give us just a minute and we'll pass these. Thank you. You've got some neighbors that are in objection, primarily due to the patients. I think there's some personal safety concerns and behavioral concerns and so forth. Could you speak to that? The program, it's a 24-hour supervised program. We do have screening. we don't have dangerous criminals that go there. It's not a program where they're allowed to come and go. It's actually for their benefit for them to stay in the program, not because they're a threat or a danger to anybody leaving the facility. So once they get there, they're there for typically a month. They do group education there for family members, also the people that have been signed up for the program. Can they leave any time they want? They can leave the program when they would like to, yeah. Not leave and come back, but if they decide to leave the program and not complete the program, yes, they can do that. Does the board have any questions? Is this program mandated by the courts if this is part of a program because of a crime they've committed, or is this a substance abuse or alcohol abuse problem that they've recognized themselves, that they're family and them, and so this is a way to get clean? It can be either. So if they walk away, they've either given up or they're failing in some court-appointed requirement. If it is a court-appointed, if the person is court-appointed to complete the treatment program, then the courts get notified when they leave, and then it goes back to the court for them to take whatever action they deem necessary. If it's somebody who just identifies himself as somebody needing treatment and they go to the program but they decide they're not going to complete for whatever reason and they leave, then yes, they're free to leave. When you say you have 24-hour supervision, does that mean that these patients or residents are, do you know their whereabouts 24 hours a day? They might leave for work, or can they wander off and come back? Would they still be considered supervised? 24-hour supervision means that we have staff there 24 hours a day. The people are not allowed to leave. from the beginning of the program to the end. They are not allowed to leave unless they go as a group with staff if they're going to go. We typically, if they're going to go out to a meeting or something, but no, they can't just leave and go to work or come back. They're there for the 28 days. Are they outside at all? Yeah, they can be outside. In a supervised, typically our plan there is for a screened area on the end of the building. but they're not outside just free to roam around, go up to the store or the gas station? Well, that was my question because of your neighbor's concerns. If they're not going to be outside wandering around in the neighborhood, is that correct? That is correct. Mr. Pearson, who regulates your industry? David? Yeah, David's much more clinical. Hi. The program is licensed by the state. Sir, would you state your name? David Hayden. Okay, Mr. Hayden. Go ahead. We're licensed by the state, Department of Behavioral Health. And Bluegrass Regional Mental Health sounds familiar. Do you have other locations or facilities besides this plan? Yeah, we have approximately 100 different locations. Okay. Do you have one in Lexington? Yes. No, they're not all substance abuse locations, but we offer outpatient services, family services, foster care, children's services. We have a number of services. Currently in the location that we're seeking conditional use for, we already operate an adult day program there. Okay. So you have other facilities of this kind elsewhere in the state? No, this is our only substance abuse program. This is our only residential substance abuse program. Is there any agency besides the Department of Behavioral Health that regulates you? We have some higher regulatory agencies, Joint Commission of Accreditation on Hospital Organizations, that we're accredited for that other than the Department for Behavioral Health. Do they inspect you regularly, or are they complaint-driven or what? No, we have a tri-annual inspection, and then it could be anywhere from 18 months. If there is a complaint, then you could have an inspection as well. But without any complaints, it's typically every three years. Have you done this before, provided this kind of facility before? I mean, is this a? We currently operate this facility. It's been in operation for? Twenty-something years. Yeah, it's been in operation for many years. Well, I mean, for the purpose that you're seeking of conditional use. Yes. You've operated here before? This facility is currently located on the campus of Eastern State Hospital. Okay. And with the demolition of Eastern State, it's a bluegrass program. It's not a state-owned program. So they do not have accommodations for this program on the grounds of the new Eastern State Hospital and Culture and Research Campus. but this is simply to move this program from one location to another here in lexington okay good thank you anybody else from the board any other questions if not i'll entertain a motion mr chair i move to approve c 2012-77 bluegrass regional mental health appeal for a conditional use permit to establish an assisted living facility slash rehabilitation home in a planned shopping center zone at 3479 Buckhorn Drive as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions as recommended by staff. Second. Second. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion is approved. Good luck, Mr. Gears. Thank you. Item C, 2012-78, Total Grace Baptist Church. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. How are you doing? Good. Would you state your name for the record, please? Sir Rathodet. Yes, sir. The appeal for conditional use to establish a child care facility and planned neighborhood zone at 1313 North Limestone Street, The staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you looked that over and agreed to those conditions? Yes, sir. Very good. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? It's been a while since I read this report, but there was some recommendations by them on moving the outside recreation area. Did you think that was a good idea? Yes, sir, based on what the board was looking for. So you think you'll follow their idea? Yes, sir. That's great. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2012-78's Total Grace Baptist Church appeal for conditional use to establish a child care facility in the planned neighborhood residential zone at 1313 North Limestone Street. based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions. Second. If there's a motion and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck, sir. I appreciate it. The next item is on the agenda. The administrative review, of course, we've already postponed indefinitely Cherokee Park. The second one is Clyde Simmons, Jamie Shearer, Amy Clark, Sherry Heumann, and Karen Bassetti. appeals for administrative review of building inspections, issuance of a permit for paving, and we're expecting to hear from staff. Gentlemen? Actually, sir, it was continued for the applicants, the neighbors, to submit additional information. Seeing in the audience that the applicants of this third-party appeal are not here today and neither is the Division of Building Inspection, the staff would recommend that this item be continued on to your January 25, 2013 hearing. Also, we can contact the appellants in Building Inspection and inform them that it will appear on your January agenda, and they should plan to attend that meeting. Very good. Does anybody have any questions or concerns? We'll need to have a motion then to move this to the January Board of Adjustment meeting. Yes, sir. The Board will need to make a motion to continue. Ordinarily, we would continue it a month, but since the legal ad deadline has passed, we feel it would be safer to continue it to January. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone A-2012-62 to our January meeting. I'm sorry, to continue to our January meeting. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes, and we'll continue that then to the January meeting. Does anybody on the board have any items to present, or staff have any items to present at this time? Mr. Chairman, we do have one item as a staff. On the bottom of page four of your agenda, we would note that one of the members of the Landscape Review Committee's term is just about to expire at the end of today. That is Mr. Mike Cravens, who is a representative of the Lexington Home Builders. He has agreed to continue to serve on the Landscape Review Committee, which Mr. Griggs well knows meets several times a year to review landscape variances that are proposed. This committee advises the board on those types of applications. We would ask the board to consider a new four-year term for Mr. Craven since he is willing to serve. We would also note that there is a typo on the agenda for the member listed just above Mr. Craven, that is Karen Angelucci. Her term is, she was reappointed last year, and her term will go to the year 2015. 2015. Thank you, Mr. Salernick. The Board have any questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion for Mr. Cravens to be reappointed for four years to the Landscape Review Committee. Do we have a motion? Well, I have a question about that. I can't remember ever where the Board of Adjustment has the authority to put people on this landscaping review. I don't remember us ever doing that before. It usually is an item in November every year. As a matter of fact, when we found the typo, we went to the November minutes from last year and found where the Board did appoint Ms. Angelucci to another four-year term. Well, maybe I missed that. Okay. Okay. Maybe that's how you initially got on this committee. Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve Mr. Cravens? So moved. Second. All in favor, sign up by aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. I think that's the agenda. Mr. Emmons, do you have anything? Other than wishing the board happy holidays, there is one other staff item from our zoning enforcement section. It appears on the addendum on your agenda today as a staff item. It's a request for a revocation. I'll turn the microphone over to Mr. Marks. I remember this hearing. It was one of my first meetings before I was fully familiar with the processes of the board. And I think we had some difficulty with this applicant at that hearing a year and a half or so ago. If we need a motion, I'll be glad to make it. Mr. March, we'd like to hear from you first. Okay, yeah, I'll give you a real brief rundown. Mr. Glover, I remember the conversations you had about there was a major concern about how to deal. It was a very awkward situation given the permitting history and all that with regard to the excavation. But 22 years ago, this site was approved for a composting operation on a 22-acre parceled-out piece in the middle of the farm. About four years ago, a major excavation project was initiated. that ended up being permitted by our Division of Engineering. The story that we got at that time was that the purpose of that excavation was to create more hard-level surfaces for his composting operation. There was a lot of questions raised about that in itself. Because we documented that he was selling some of the material at that time, we advised him that he had to get a conditional use to operate a quarry, which is what the zoning ordinance prescribes for that use. He went to this board and asked for a temporary quarrying conditional use, and he was turned down and was disapproved. So the practical implication of that was that he just couldn't sell the material. Very recently, we have documented two instances where he has sold material again, this time filled dirt from that site. We had an inspector follow the trucks that were being loaded up, and people on the construction sites where the trucks were going to verified that they were in fact buying the material for Mr. Robinson. So when you kind of weave all this together, put a lot of the things that happened in the past together, and it's our impression at this point that it's being operated still more as a quarry than for composting. If you go to the site, there's very little of the hard surfaces that were created that are actually being used for composting. And so if you combine that with this recent selling of material, we thought the best approach was to bring this information to you all's attention, give everybody a chance to give their side of the story, so to speak, at a revocation hearing. So that's our recommendation that for January 25th that we go ahead and schedule a revocation hearing so we can get this all out on the record and make a decision about where to go. I've got several questions. What are we being asked? What's the staff recommending that we revoke? We already denied him permission to operate a quarry. I guess we granted him permission to operate a composting center. That would be the issue, whether or not you want to revoke the 22-year-old conditional use for the composting operation. But the composting is not the issue. It's the selling rock that he's quarried off of his property. It's all tied up together. I mean, I'm just asking for, on technical, perhaps legal grounds, what we're doing. I want to make sure that we do do it correctly so that he doesn't have complaints or defenses to what exactly we're doing. The linkage here is the excavation. If the excavation was indeed not for the purpose of facilitating the composting, then we've got to decide how to address that. But I understand your point, and kind of the exact same issue came up with the community end, where we're saying, well, they're doing something that really is not what was authorized by the conditional use. Why would we invalidate the conditional use, just do enforcement on what they're doing? Well, we weighed all that out in legal terms, and we ended up deciding the best approach was to actually revoke the conditional use for the church. So in many respects, it's very similar to that situation. Yeah, it has to do with our authority. I mean, we're not a police force, and we're just an administrative review board. So I want to make sure that if we do something, we do it correctly. I don't want to get us into any trouble or anything like that. And I'm asking for information more than anything. Is selling rock that's already quarried without permission considering operation of a quarry? Yes. Okay. The way that's defined in the ordinance, that would be operating a quarry. Okay. If you sell or otherwise dispose of the material in a commercial to facilitate a commercial operation, Okay, so that operation is in violation of our previous denial of his permission to operate a quarry. That's correct. So I'm just exploring alternatives. So what is our authority with respect to people who ignore, violate our rulings from this board? Well, we go through a process of, you know, we issued a notice of violation to Mr. Robinson. and even after getting that notice of violation, he proceeded once again to sell some more material, so we issued a civil citation. He's actually appealed that to the Infrastructure Hearing Board. So that's the first step. If we go through all that and we still don't get a problem resolved, then our next step is to go cite someone criminal to district court. It would be a criminal complaint, and then it gets tied up in all that. Okay. And if he comes in at a revocation hearing and says you're revoking a composting permission use, but that's not in violation, what you're charging me in violation of is selling quarried material rather than a composting violation, what's our legal response to that? And again, I'm just asking for information to head off any problems. Mr. Glover, I think the revocation hearing would be for the Board to determine whether or not he was complying with the original conditions 22 years ago. Okay. Associated with the composting. And the composting permission doesn't include quarrying, which is what we're complaining about. All right. I just want to make sure it's tied together. Thank you. Thank you both. Okay. Mr. Glover. Anybody else? Any other? Mr. Greggs? Well, since we're this deep into it, I'd kind of like to understand the process. You were going into great detail. It would end up in civil court and then criminal court. Would you be levying fines daily or weekly or a single fine that you're trying to collect? For us, each time we issue a fine, we have to document that the violation has occurred again, which is problematic in a situation like this because we have to have an inspector out there at the right time and make the right connections. And it may sound obvious that you can happen that way, but it's really difficult to catch people at the right time and to verify that there's actually been a sale. So we kind of lucked out, to be honest with you, that we were able to document it twice in the last month. So just for general information, most of our rulings are permissive. We don't affirmatively order people to do things. We typically either allow or don't allow them to do things. So I guess my question is enforcement of an order not to do something. How do we, we would, in general, and not simply for this particular use, but in general, how are our rulings enforced? You mentioned district court in a criminal situation. there are processes for bringing an action in Fayette District Court for violation of an order of either building inspection or of this board for ignoring or violating that order? Tracy, I'm probably going to have to get you to weigh in here. Well, we didn't really look at that a whole lot because we determined that we aren't going to prosecute a criminal violation. It's going to go to the county attorney's office. Okay. And so we were looking at the best way for, within our context of planning and zoning, to be able to do something about this. and that would be that he sought a conditional use however long ago to do something, and he's doing something outside the conditions of that permit, and that he knows he's not supposed to be doing. So, I mean, there are other options, but they seem to be more drawn out and difficult to deal with, and they wouldn't be dealing directly with us. And, of course, it's also sort of a different area for us because of this zoning enforcement. that we have not always been doing out of this, you know. Yeah, I guess I just want us to be thinking about that, about the processes before we hold a hearing. And if we come to the end of a hearing and don't have a plan, I mean, I think we just need to be thinking about what the next step would be, depending on the outcome. I mean, if you all hold a revocation hearing, you're going to have to be looking at the conditional use permit and the terms of what is allowed for a conditional use permit in this zone and what was on that permit and whether or not he's violating that. I mean, if that's how it goes forward, that's what you all will be, the parameters you'll have to work in. Okay. So the suggestion for having this on the docket is for us to decide whether or not to hold a revocation hearing of his conditional use permit to operate a composting facility. That's correct. Okay. Well, then, we need to know from you that he's in violation of those conditions on the composting conditional use permit. And is he? This is where it gets a little bit tricky, admittedly, because 22 years ago things were done differently than they are now, and the conditions are pretty general. But it will be our burden to present that to you. If we do have a revocation hearing on the 25th, obviously there will be a lot more detail than what I've presented to you so far, but we'll have to make that connection. I'm curious. There's a presumption that he uses the land for the purpose in which it was approved for, and maybe there's not specifically a condition that says that, but there's an overall presumption that that's what is supposed to take place. And what would our options be as a board? I mean, is it an up or down vote? Is it a, I mean, can we put conditions on conditions? Do we have, I'm just kind of curious what kind of authority we have to do what we want to do if we want to do something. I don't know that you can put new conditions on him. I don't know that you have to revoke it at that hearing, depending on what he says. You may have to be able to, if you feel so inclined, give him some kind of directive that he has to comply with the terms of that, and those terms do not include quarrying. I think you could do that. And I think also one of the things to consider in this is that if the original conditional use permit included the right to do commercial quarrying, then there would have not been any need for this hearing that you were talking about at the beginning of this a year and a half ago because it would have been on that original permit. So he couldn't, in good faith, I don't think come in here and say, well, yeah, this original permit allows me to do that, because if that was the case, he wouldn't have needed to come ask you all a year and a half ago to do it, which was disapproved. And so that's why I'm asking the question, why is the conditional use permit at issue if the conditional use permit has to do with composting? And, for example, if I just went out in my backyard and started quarrying rock in my backyard without any kind of permission from anybody, I wouldn't get this kind of hearing. I'd get some other kind of hearing, right? I mean, because I don't have a conditional use permit. So what does the conditional use permit granted to him 22 years ago have to do with his activities that are conducted now How is that different from me digging rock in my backyard? Well, Mr. Glover, if I could take a stab at that. Sure. If you had a conditional use permit for family child care in your backyard, and that area where you are now digging in your backyard was supposed to be your outdoor play area for the children, we would probably have a very similar recommendation than what you've heard today. Okay, so my question then is, if I have no conditional use for anything, I'm zoning compliant, but I want to quarry rock in my backyard. Who's to stop me? And I'm asking for, you know, tell me what our authority is to stop him regardless of this conditional use permit. We'd issue a notice of violation. And if you didn't fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, we'd issue a civil citation with a fine. Violation of what? A violation of there not being any provision in the ordinance to allow quarrying in your backyard. Okay. I'm more comfortable with that than tying it to the conditional use permit, I guess. The problem with not tying it together is we're talking about the same land and how that particular specific piece of land is used. and there's all this overlap, and I'll try to say this in a way that's not too judgmental, but all of this coring activity has been taking place under the guise of it being part of his composting operation. Fair enough. So we have to sort through all that. Right. Okay. I just don't want to, you know, I want to make sure we're clear about what we're deciding to do if we decide to have this. Thank you. And we'll have a chance to sort through all this in a lot more detail if there's an actual hearing. and we'll have a lot more information, of course, for you. I didn't want to vote to approve a hearing if I didn't know what the hearing was going to be about and what our options were and what our authority was at the hearing. I guess that's what I'm mostly concerned about. Thanks. Very good. Anybody else? Mr. Griggs? This woman that just came in, we've already continued her case, and maybe we can't take on that. I spoke with Ms. Clark and told her that the board had already acted. If I may, I'd appreciate your continuing. Thank you. So we're done with that. We're done with that. Okay, we have the matter of the hearing. I'd like to ask the board, what's your pleasure? Let's do this. Mr. Chairman, I move that we schedule a revocation hearing for C90-45 Con Robinson Contracting Company, a revocation hearing for the Board's January 25th public meeting. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Griggs is second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? we'll have a revocation hearing on the 25th of january thank you all is there any other matters to come before the board no sir not none from the staff well very good i'd just like to notice before two o'clock i wish more meetings were like this thank you all very much and uh we stand adjourned Thank you.