Music Music Music Music Music Music The Board of Adjustment We found out this morning that our chair Kathryn Moore could not be here Today with the inclement weather And kids at home so I have Been asked to cheer the meeting today and hopefully it will be painless on you. I would like to ask if anybody has a cell phone to please turn it off. If you have to take a phone call, if you would, do so outside. I'd like to ask everybody that's going to testify today to please stand. If anybody is going to come to the mic, please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and read the agenda. If there is no opposition, we are going to hear those cases first. If there is any opposition, we hope that you all will step outside and try to resolve any of the differences that you may have. And we also have a revocation hearing today, and we're going to hear that last. I'd like to ask right now if there are any withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, if there are no withdrawals from the audience, the staff has received a communication from two applications. They are both on page 5 of your agenda. The first item will be, both of these will be under administrative review. The first item is A, 2012-62 for Simmons, Shear, Clark, Kuhman, and Bassetti. The staff has just received an email from the applicants respectfully requesting a withdrawal of this application. The board would just need to acknowledge that it's withdrawn and that you're not going to act on that item today. And the second item, we received a letter for case A, 2013-2 for William Kevin Murphy, also requesting withdrawal of his administrative review. The board, I don't think, needs to take any particular vote on this. Just acknowledge that these are withdrawn and they will not be acted on on today's agenda. If there are any other updates during the hearing, I will be glad to speak up at an appropriate time. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Are there any other withdrawals? Okay. Our first item of agenda, we've got minutes from November and December. I'd like to have separate motions on that if the Board of Adjustment has had time to read the November minutes. the chair will entertain a motion to approve mr chair i move that we approve the november minutes as written is there a second i'll second all in favor any opposed you also have the december minutes as well if you've had a chance to take a look at those i would entertain a motion to approve Mr. Chair, I move we approve the December 14, 2012 minutes. Is there a second? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We also just received the October minutes just today, so we're going to hold those off until February to give the board an opportunity to review them. What I'd like to do first is, as I mentioned, go through the agenda. If there's no opposition, we are going to take those cases first. Any opposition? Again, we'd like for you all to try to resolve your differences out in the corridor. And as I mentioned, we'll take the revocation hearing last on the agenda today. I'd like to ask item 20, 13-7, Darrell Ray Slusher. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition? We'll get to you in just a second, Mr. Slusher. Thank you. second item is item v 2013 8 justin jones is justin jones here is there any opposition to mr jones request okay uh steve head builder item c 2013 1 the applicant here any opposition for steve head builders okay Greg Walker, Trace Investments. Is that applicant here? Mr. Murphy, any opposition? Mr. George Gilpin, item 20, 13-4. The applicant is here. Is there any opposition to item 20, 13? Item 20, 13-5, Pike Spragans. The applicant is here. Is there any opposition? Okay. Mrs. Fray, you can come down here if you'd like to. We won't bite you up there. El Portrillo Mexican Barn Grill. Is the applicant here? Mr. Emmons? Before the meeting today, I did talk to this applicant, and she indicated on the phone that she was no longer interested in this application and would not be here today. I am waiting on an email from her to officially withdraw her application. As far as what we would do today, I would advise that we just hold off on this one until later in the meeting and see if we get any word from the applicant. I do know that there is some opposition in the audience today to this application. Very good. All right, Mr. Williams, we'll wait and hear from you, and hopefully we'll hear something from the applicant before. The first case, no opposition. Item 2013-7, Darrell Ray Slusher, appeals for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet in order to allow security fencing to remain as constructed in a planned residential neighborhood zone at 2716 to 2724 Green Valley Court and 2017-2725 Bay Cedar Court. Mr. Slusher, you can go ahead and state your case. The staff recommends approval. They do have one condition. Have you read that condition? Yes, but if you can maybe tell me which. Well, the condition that the staff has recommended approval and subject to the following condition, that the fencing shall remain where currently located is depicted in the submitted application and site plan. Yes, sir. Do you agree with that? Yes, sir. Very good. Does the board have any questions of Mr. Slusher? I have a question of Mr. Griggs. Jimmy, can you remind me why it is that this requirement for the three-foot side yard exists? Is it for fire safety, the firemen, or access for protecting the buildings? That was one of the major concerns whenever this regulation was put into place. The intent of the regulation was to be able to keep a six-foot open area between the house wall. The house wall were in those lots that have three-foot side yards, and not to put an obstruction in between there. What is this applicant is in their unique situation where there are six houses that are being used together with a common rear yard. The fencing goes between the houses. It doesn't run in between the houses. It goes from house to house. It's a unique situation. And also, they could have put the fencing at the rear from the back of the house to the back of the house, but that would have left their side yards unsecured. And as we noted in our staff report, these particular residences have been subject of multiple vandalism acts, primarily where people have been turning on the water spigots and doing damage to these homes. So by moving the fencing to the front of the houses rather than at the rear of the houses, it secures their side yards. Staff felt that this variance was justified for all the reasons that we've elaborated on in our report. It's definitely a unique situation. It's a unique living arrangement also. Is this drawing accurate? The fences from house to house are about halfway down the length of the house, So you've got some side yard secured and some side yard not secured, but I guess the hydrants are in the backyards. And I'll let Mr. Slush answer that. He installed the fence and can explain that a little bit better. Well, just a minute. But this doesn't really – the objective of the zoning law is for the fire department to be able to make it around the house, right? Yes, Mr. Griggs, let me use a graphic to kind of illustrate why this restriction exists. I hope I can answer your question with it. Thank you. I remember this text amendment very well from several years ago, so I hope I can explain it. On this graphic, let's zoom in just a little bit. depicted two example houses, and the red being the fence that was allowable at the time between the two houses. In some of our zones, these walls that you see between the fence could be as close as six feet apart under our R1E and R3 zones. The Planning Commission reviewed the general question as to whether this was too close for these homes to be set back. Three-foot separation does meet the building code requirement. That was one of the things the staff researched. This has been probably 10 or 15 years ago when the Planning Commission looked at this. But we were also aware that other jurisdictions were increasing this minimum setback between structures. this red line is depicted right along the property line in this sample example and what the fire department was having a problem with were folks who were fencing their rear yards but not at the back corner of the houses and so this was causing a problem if the fire department had an emergency run and had to get to the backyard of a property with this very narrow three foot area especially if they encountered something like an air conditioning unit or something of that effect. So the regulation was modified so that this could no longer be done, but the fence would have to be erected on this part of the property and then continue along this property line. In this particular case, it's my understanding that although this fence exists between these six houses in a few locations, this fence does not, and I'll certainly let Mr. Emmons correct me if I'm wrong there. So we don't see this situation, which was causing the fire department problems, when this original restriction was put in place. I hope that helps. Well, I'm still a little bit confused at how the fire department can get between these houses when you've got a stockade fence from side to side. If you'll notice, there are several gates. Well, are these gates locked? And if they are, then how does this security issue, how is that resolved? That I do not know the answer to. I don't know whether they lock their gates or not. Well, I would say that they would if they're worried about security. And I don't know why you can't put your hoses in your garage and take the handles off the hydrants or buy a lock for the hydrant. And I think that moving these connecting fences to the back property to the back of a house so that it would be in compliance with the code would keep us from setting a precedent, not to mention it would help with the fire department's need to get around the house. All right, well, actually the vandalism part itself is that they actually broke the whole unit off outside. You know, it's not that they're just like actually turning the water on itself. I mean, they actually broke the whole unit off outside of the house, and then that allowed all the damage, you know, to be done to the inside of the house, you know, like the flooding and stuff like that. Are these houses on slabs? Yes. Yes. I actually also have some photos. And from my understanding, as long as the fire department could get to the eve of the houses, that, you know, that the fences where they are now would be okay. So from where all of the fences, like in between the houses, they are actually back from the eave. I mean, the fire department would still have access to the eave of all of the houses there. How would they have access to the back of the house when there's a stockade fence halfway down the length of the house connecting the houses? okay and there's another unique circumstance too for this is because uh when they first originally actually built the house there are some screened in porches and they're every every single house that is in question has has the screened in porch so if i move the fence all the way back to the very back of the house that's leaving that's leaving the screened in porches there too, because that's where the vandals were going in and out of the houses also. My problem is just that these are rectangular flat lots and there's no special circumstances. And if we give a variance for this, then we've set a precedent that will be followed by everybody that wants to do this that has an attorney. And I don't think it would cost much to move this back. I think that's probably your primary worry is that you're going to be paying for this. Is that it? No, because when we first originally had or actually got the permit from actually downtown here, that was nowhere on the restrictions. I mean, I have been building fence now for 15 years. I mean, I've never run into this problem whatsoever because I most definitely read every restriction on there. And the restriction that with the three-foot side yard, it was not printed on that part of the permit. I read that in the staff report. I sympathize with you. I think it was a mistake, and the city has caused this problem. I don't think it was your negligence. Right. But that as it is, I think it's our job to protect these zoning codes if there's a building and a fire safety issue. And for that matter, these are six houses worth probably three-quarters of a million dollars owned by the church, and they're not paying any taxes. I think they could probably reimburse you for the cost of moving these fences. Okay, now let me say this here. I mean, if I can ask you a question also, that if we move the fence back just a couple feet, I mean, so you're telling me that the fire department that can actually get into the backyard, I mean, that if we do move it back, that if we do move the fence back, okay, for one, if we move the fence back, the fence is no longer needed. I mean, the fence is no longer needed, I mean, at the residence itself. So that if we do move the fence back, I mean, what allows the fire department to have any more access as far as where the fence is located now? I've made my point. You may prevail here. I just wanted to bring all this up for people's attention. Brian. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Emers, do you have any further comment on that? No, sir, we do not have any further comment. The staff would stand by our recommendation. Very good. I have a question, I guess, of the staff. You said, I think, originally that this arrangement is unique. Maybe the construction is not, but the arrangement is. How is it unique? all six of these single family homes are under the same ownership, and the church owns all six of these, and we have retired priests that live in each of the six homes independently, yet they wish to share a common open space backyard. And the staff felt quite comfortable in saying that this is a unique living arrangement because, to my knowledge, I can't think of any other six single-family homes that have gone together to essentially share a common open space in their rear yards. This is not a typical fencing arrangement. It's not a typical living arrangement. We do feel that it is unique. Are the short fences between the houses existing there now? Yes, sir. Okay. That's what I thought. So the new proposal is the fence on the side? There is no new proposal. This application is before you today. The applicant did get the fencing permit, built the fencing, and during the final inspection of the fencing permit is when the realization for the need for Board of Adjustment variants came about. and the staff detailed kind of the chain of events in our staff report of how it got to that point and feels confident that it's, in this particular case, it's more a series of unfortunate events rather than any one particular thing that led them to the board today. There does not appear to be any type of trying to get around the zoning ordinance in this situation, Does that make sense? I can also show some photos, like of the backyard, so that you guys can have a better understanding of what you're doing. Why don't you put those up for us? All right. Thank you. While he's doing that, I share Mr. Gregg's concern about setting a precedent. I want to guard against that to the extent that we can. That's why I was asking about the unique nature of this arrangement. Have the deeds been joined? I mean, has there been some, if they're all owned by the church, are they owned in common? The applicants have submitted six separate deeds for the six single-family homes. I'm not sure if there's any other way they could have done that. All right. I don't think that's going to help us too much. Here's a little better. and as you look at the photograph you know because this is the very first house if I'm not mistaken that's going to be the Green Valley the very first house on Green Valley from where we built the fence and and as you can see there that it's almost all the way back to the back of the house. We just had to allow just enough so that we could cover the water spigots itself. And as you can see, the screened-in porches, you know, that's another unique deal there because they didn't want to be out in the elements and stuff like that and still have a place to meet, you know. and like I said before that if I would have known you know you know that the restriction existed that I would have most definitely told the archdiocese you know that we would have to go an alternate route you know like as far as the fencing is concerned you know and then you know we would have you know we would have tried to come up with another route but as you can see there You know, that from my opinion, and that's just one of many, of course, but if you just move it back just that little bit, you know, how's that going to allow just that, you know, the access? And there's also some other photos if you scroll. Does the staff see any safety issue here? No, sir. We feel comfortable with this request. Any fire safety issue? We did not specifically pull in the fire department for their opinion on this request during our review. Are there any other questions from the board? I'd just like to make an observation. The ownership by the Catholic diocese, the six of them being owned, is a unique situation. But what happens if these houses are sold to individual entities, that unique situation goes away. And I think that the variance stays with the land. the staff did think about that and and our it seems like a simple uh the one condition that we placed on there it seems like a simple condition but the fencing shall remain as currently located if these properties were to be sold off into separate ownership and yes you you are correct the variance goes with the land not the property owner but if they were to be sold off in separate ownership in the future, and they wish to put in their own individual fencing rather than the shared common open space, they would have to comply with the regulations because this one condition, it will be that the fencing remains as it is. If they wanted to change it, then they are no longer meeting the condition of this variance, and the variance is no longer valid. So regardless of ownership, if they wanted to change the fencing, this variance no longer applies. So it seemed like a very simple condition, but did put a lot of thought into the wording of that condition when I wrote it. Mr. Evans, I have a question. If this variance was denied, what would the option be, to take down the fence? The applicant would need to take down the fence or rebuild the fence in a way that met the zoning ordinance requirements. They could, you know, just remove the fencing, but they could also rebuild it in such a way that meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The portion that would be removed or changed are just the fences between the buildings, little six-foot sections, the long lengths between the backyards from street to street would be fine, right? Yeah, anywhere that a fence is in between the walls of the buildings. So, you know, if the fence is behind the building, then that would comply with our zoning ordinance. So whenever you have a fence in between building wall to building wall. Right. They just need to move these attaching, the fences that attach the buildings to each other, back to the back of the buildings and they'd be in compliance. I think that would be one way to be in compliance. Thank you. Mr. Slush, why don't you come back out here so we can hear you a little bit better? The only reason that I'm against actually moving the fences back, because I'm sure that they would reimburse us for the fence. It's not about the money or anything like that. It's about, you know, the priests that live there now actually having the peace of mind of not having to worry every second of the day or night of having to worry somebody coming through their back porch or someone breaking their water spigot off. And, you know, that's why that I would be... And I'm anxious to say that's why I'm here speaking on their behalf, because it's not about that. I mean, because I would probably make more money moving the fence back. So I wanted to take my time out to come down and speak on their behalf, saying why the fencing is most definitely needed in this area. Thank you, Mr. Slusher. Yes, I thank you guys. Thank you. Do I understand from staff that by moving the fences between the houses towards the back of the house would satisfy the code requirements? But having it where it is does not? That doesn't make as much sense to me as it probably should. And maybe that's my fault in not understanding it. And that gets back to Mr. Selle's first diagram. It's whenever you have a fence in between the two walls of the house. So if it's behind the house and it's considered at the back corner, it would be behind the house. You can fence off corner to corner because that's starting at behind the house and back. It's whenever the fencing in these smaller side yards goes in between the two walls of the two buildings that this occurs. So what you're saying is it's a definitional thing. Okay. It's definition and dimensional. Dimensional, right. Okay. Thank you. And if I can also say one more thing. Sure, if you don't mind. Because if the fence has to be moved back at all, I mean, the fencing itself is no longer needed. So I actually guess what I'm trying to say is that if we move it back, you know, because we can't move it back far enough, that actually satisfy one aspect as far as the water spigots, and then if we move it back to the back of the house, and then we're allowing the other part to actually stay open also. So I guess they would have to hire a night watchman or something. That's the only thing that I could think of as far as that if we took down the fence itself and actually moved it back as far as to comply with the ordinance. Well, it sounds to me like several members of the board think that there might be a precedent set under the current conditions, Mr. Slusher, and I'd like to ask the board what their pleasure would be as far to, as Mr. Slusher says, moving a fence back really is a moot resolution in that he might as well take the fence down. And I know Mr. Griggs, Mr. Glover, I'd like to ask what your pleasure would be as we move forward. Well, I have some sympathy for the applicant and the Catholic diocese for having gotten themselves into this situation, trying to remedy a security problem and running up against definitional and dimensional restrictions of the code. I think the unique nature of the living condition is probably the most persuasive, and that may make it unique. And I can see why the staff would recommend approval because of that. And I'm kind of inclined to go along with that. Could we add a second condition that would keep this in place only so long as the Catholic diocese owns all six pieces of property? I mean, I don't even know whether that's legal. but if they I understand the concern about if they sold them off one at a time and various people moved in you understand what my concern is I believe that you could put a condition on there as long as all six lots are in common ownership not naming one particular entity as owning them But since the essence of the appeal is that all six properties function as an independent but collective unit, and that is a unique situation, I believe that you could condition it upon common ownership, but not name a specific owner. That would help me. Mr. Griggs? Well, I think they're composing that additional condition, but I would like to suggest that maybe the staff talk to the Planning Commission about a text amendment, because if this fencing requirement between houses that are close together was adopted to protect life and property, but it's apparently not needed, then I think we ought to not be faced with these cases. I think we ought to just change the text of the zoning ordinance so it doesn't require this. This restriction has been on the books I think 15 or I don't think it's about 15 years, and we have maybe one or two of these a year is all. For as many residential properties as we have, it's not a common variance. That's for certain. I think we have a condition we're going to try and put on the overhead here. Condition number two would simply read, provided that all six lots remain in common ownership. That's pretty succinct. I like that. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Would that be acceptable? Yes, it would be. Mr. Slusher. Because that's most definitely that I would run something back over to the archdiocese and let them be aware of. I can also say this here. From what time that I was building the fences, I also had time to speak with the archdiocese quite a few times. And my understanding is that these houses are going to be passed down from priest to priest. So as far as the units being sold off one by one or actually just being sold off, I actually don't see that in the near future. Because they're going to be passed down from priest to priest to priest. Thank you, Mr. Slasher. I thank you. Does any of the board have any other comments? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the appeal of Darrell Ray Schlescher, number 2013-7, appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet in order to allow security fencing to remain as constructed in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 2716 to 2724 Green Valley Court, even numbers only, and 2717 to 2725 Bay Cedar Cove, odd numbers only, for the reasons that we've discussed here, for the reasons that are listed in the staff report and subject to the two conditions that we've listed here. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Mr. Griggs opposed. Thank you very much. All right, guys, thank you. You guys have a sec. Second item, Justin Jones, item V, 2013. Justin Jones appeals for variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 12 feet to allow off-street parking in single-family residence at 682 Springhurst Drive. The applicant, state your name for the record, please. Justin Jones. Mr. Jones, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes, I do. Very good. Thank you. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions of Mr. Jones. Mr. Griggs. Sorry, but I do. What is the size of that garage that makes it, I think you said, useless? It's not actually the size of the garage that renders it useless. The opening is approximately 8 feet. The original door was about 8 feet wide. But the vehicle that I owned at the particular time when we bought the house was simply too large to put in that space. That made it useless. So it was the vehicle you owned that made the garage too small, even though an 8-foot door is a standard door size and 12 feet wide and 20 feet deep is a standard garage size. Their building garage is that size today. I understand that. But also inside the door, the dimensions once you got into the garage were, I would say, on the left side, if you were facing the garage door, I would say just from memory alone, inside the door opening to the wall would have only been a foot, a foot and a half maybe. So once you got in the garage, it was difficult to get the door open and get out of the vehicle, especially if you had a snow shovel or a bike or a snow sled or a stack of paint cans or anything like that. It made it quite difficult to get out of the vehicle. Yeah, you probably have to keep it cleared away, but it's a 12 by 20 garage according to the tax records, And so even when you take away the thickness of the wall, you've got 11 feet. I don't think it was even on each side is what I'm saying. The right side was a different story. What would be the passenger side if you were to pull into the garage was larger than the driver's side. I'm just going over your application. And I think you made the statement that 50% of the homes in the area have converted one-car garages into living space. Is that an accurate number? I would say that's fairly accurate, yes, give or take maybe 10%. Well, I drove down the street. There's 25 houses on your street, and there's only three houses where they've converted the garages into living space, not counting yours. Okay. So that's less than 10% of the houses. Okay. I was referring to the entire Southland area, not just my street in particular, so maybe I should have stated that a little differently in the application. My apologies. Staff, I think you mentioned in the staff report that there was one other house that had been given a variant similar to this. Yes, it's almost directly across the street. It's catty corner to the subject property. in 1991, the Board of Adjustment did approve a very similar request for a reduction in the front yard in order to allow, in that particular instance, not only had they enclosed their garage and turned it into living space, but they also had built a carport out to cover the driveway. The Board did grant a variance. The staff relied, you know, we looked at, we definitely took that case into account whenever we were looking at this. That was 20 years ago? 1991, yes. And the other thing that, and we did mention this in our staff report, that kind of the practical implications that even if Mr. Jones does have to restore the garage to a parking space in order to meet his required parking, that does not mean that he is definitely going to park a car there. They could still be parking in the driveway and on the street as they are today. Okay. For those reasons and the other reasons that we recommend in our staff report, the staff, when we weighed this one out, it came down on the side of recommending approval rather than disapproval. So you don't think this is precedent setting? With these reasons, anybody on that street in a similar situation, and there's eight more houses, They would be able to come in and just say, we want to build an office, so let's disregard this zoning requirement. And the other thing that was kind of a turning point for the staff is that I did go back and reread the zoning regulations that were in place at the time that Springhurst subdivision was being built back in the 50s. at that time there was no specific requirement in the zoning ordinance that your parking space be behind the building line. There were requirements that if you chose to build a garage for your parking space that the garage had to be behind the building line, but there was no requirement that you had to put a parking space that was not in a garage in there. And the staff felt that fairly important to look at this particular subdivision in the era that it was built and what the regulations were at the time that it was built. One last question is how did this get so far along without a building permit? Did you hire a contractor, or are you capable of doing the framing? No, I did it all myself. I worked for a number of years through high school and college in the summers for contractors, so I learned how to do a lot of it during that time. And I asked around family and friends about permits, and I was told by family and friends that they had done lots of renovation work in their house without a permit. I researched it online, and I essentially found the answer I was looking for, so I quit looking. I found out after the fact that I do need the building permit, which I intend to pursue once the variance is dealt with. But at this point, I have a $1,700 custom-built window that's sitting in the hole where the garage door was that I'm not really willing to put on the curb at this point. Well, I think the solution would have been to build an addition on the back of the house and left it like it was. It's quite a sizable difference in terms of expense, though. Sure, it's always about money. But I'm considering the way you inflated the number of times this has been done and that your garage is certainly not useless. I mean, I think you own a Subaru, don't you? I just drove down your street, so I mean, it would fit in there easily. At the time when I purchased the home, that's not what I own. And with your background, I would think that you had an inkling that you should have gotten a permit. So it's just one of those cases that comes up that bothers me. Okay, well, I apologize that I didn't state correctly in the application that I was not just referring to my street. I think if you would have gone another street over, you might have seen quite a few additional homes that have done what I did. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Jones? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, item V, 2013-8, Justin Jones, appeal for a variance to reduce, I make a motion to approve, I've left that out, to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 12 feet to allow an all-street parking space in a single-family residential R1C zone at 682 Springhurst Drive be approved as recommended by staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Thank you, Ms. White. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor, sign by by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Mr. Griggs opposed. You've been approved, Mr. Jones. Good luck. Thank you. Next item is Stephen Head Builder. The applicant can come forward, please. State your name for the record, please. Steve Head. Thank you, Mr. Head. Mr. Head, the staff has looked at this in item C-2013. They have recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. You agree to abide by them? Yes. Thank you. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions of Mr. Head. Ms. Myers? No. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Green. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Marshall. I move we approve C-2013-1 Steve Head Builder LLC's appeals for a conditional use permit to expand an existing church addition to Church of Athens Parsonage in the Agricultural AR Zone at 6991 Athens Bloomsboro Road as recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions. I'll second that. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. All in favor, sign up by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Excellent presentation, Mr. Head. Moving on. Moving on, Greg Walker and Trace Investments. The applicant please come forward. State your name for the record, please. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Greg Walker. And we just had three letters of support we wanted to get in the record, which I'm passing out to you along with our site plan. And we did have a – we'd been talking to the staff about the conditions. We did have a modification to condition one. and we have something we want to discuss with you briefly about condition six. To just give you a little background here, Greg Walker is with me, and Greg, of course, is part of the Walker family. You may have heard of him. Randy Walker is his dad. They have done the adaptive reuse project down on National Avenue and turned it into an artistic sort of craft business type area. Greg grew up on Haley Pike. His parents live at 3,600 Haley Pike. Craig's lived there all his life except for one year. He now owns and lives at 3,700 Haley Pike with his family, which is about three lots down from this property as well. And his property at 3,700 Haley Pike has a PDR, Purchase of Development Rights Easement, on it. And what we're here for today is an outdoor recreational facility. And I do want to say on the record there was a rumor going around the neighborhood that this was a shooting range. It's not a shooting range. It's hard to describe. It's sort of called a pumpkin farm. I think the shooting range came out because one of the outdoor recreational facilities listed in the ordinance is a shooting range. And one of the neighbors was enthusiastic about getting a shooting range here and was hoping it was a shooting range. But it's not a shooting range. It's a pumpkin. So you're not going to be shooting pumpkins on the farm? No, I guess that might be something other people like to do, but no. This will have hay rides, corn maze, children's activity area, playground, and pumpkins on it. And this property, if you went out to see it, is sort of open. There's a private road on there now. Right now it's being used, unfortunately, for some dumping and parking of tractor trailers without permission overnight and that sort of thing. And all the neighbors around have been very enthusiastic about getting this in. We have three letters there. One of them is from Greg's father. The other two are from our immediate next-door neighbor to the south, the immediate neighbor across the street, both of whom are enthusiastic about this. and he's talked to a number of other people. There was another person who's going to come, but it hasn't gotten here yet. What we wanted to talk about, we talked to the staff about Condition 1 and Condition 7, and I think we've agreed that the buffer to the property to the south, as required in Condition 3, is 60 feet, and it said 60 feet in 3 and 250 feet in Number 1, and I think the staff has agreed on 60 feet and number one. We spoke to the neighbor across next door and he actually didn't require any buffer area. He's enthusiastic about this coming in. But 60 feet we feel would be appropriate there and I think the staff's in agreement with that. Is that right? Yes, the staff on condition number one where it says 250 feet, the staff would recommend changing that number to 60 feet and that way there will not be anything disjointed in the conditions. And like Mr. Murphy pointed out, the staff has received a letter from that property owner in support of this application, although it doesn't mention specifically any buffer or anything like that. The staff feels 60 feet is an appropriate number for condition number one. I think that's the only change that we have. The other one we wanted to talk to you about was number six, and that's the roadside stand. And roadside stands are allowable to sell in the AR zone produce grown on the premises. And that's part of this, obviously, pumpkins, gourds, that kind of thing that may be grown on the site. And if you could put up the site plan, which is the last page in that handout, I'd appreciate that very much. Here's, of course, Haley Pike. Here's the on-ramp to I-64 going there. This is the existing entrance, paved parking area or paved roadway, and then there's a gravel road coming in here. The way the condition is worded, the roadside stand to sell pumpkins in would have to be within 75 feet of this road. That presents a logistical problem on the application. The focus of this property, if you've been out there, there's an old cabin on the property. It's actually this. It's labeled as a barn, but that's the old cabin that's on the property. It's from the 1820s. It was, as I understand, a traveler's cabin for people, I guess, going between Lexington and Ashland. They'd stay there overnight. And this is the barn back here. Now, the visual focus of the property is that cabin because there's a little grove of trees around there and also, obviously, the historical focal point. And Greg is going to look into rehabilitating the cabin to be the main headquarters for the activities out there. And instead of having a temporary stand here next to the road where if you come in and park, you're thinking, okay, do I go there or do I go here? I mean, this would be the headquarters for the corn maze and hay rides and all that sort of thing. The only reason we'd have to have a stand there was to sell the pumpkins. We'd like to be able to do it all here because that will keep the focus on the historical nature of the property, get people to come back there. It won't take the focus away from this cabin at the expense of a stand right there. The other reason is if there's pumpkins being grown, pumpkins can be heavy. It would be better to be able to pay for them there. and then if somebody on the grigs people want to help carry it to the cars, which are going to be down here, that's appropriate. These are relatively longer distances here. This is a 50-acre tract property. So it makes sense, we think, from a historical focus and the focus of the property and just logistically for getting pumpkins to cars and people having to carry them. Now, we know that it's a roadside stand, and the word roadside is in there. And so the question is, how close to a road do we have to get? The definition in the zoning ordinance simply says a roadside stand is a stand for selling produce grown on the premises. It doesn't say it has to be within a certain number of feet of the road. Obviously, it's got to be a road somewhere because it's a roadside stand. Now, we do have a historic gravel drive coming through here, which has been, And I've talked to Mr. Howard, who's the current owner of the property, been there forever as far as we know on that, which is a road. And we propose, if we can't have it there, to be within 75 feet of at least the gravel road, which is the historical road on the property, which would allow at least it to be back in this area. I think if we put a dimension of, what, 200 feet on there, we would get into the, be able to use the cabin on that. But that's the issue. I think you can see what we're doing. We're trying not to divide up the places you have to go to too many places. We'd like to keep everything back here. We understand we can just sell produce that's grown on the premises. but again roadside stand does say roadside but it doesn't say how far I would just work better for this property in this circumstance with that historic road going back there and the historic cabin being back there to have that be the focal point of this activity so we'd propose either that we'd like it to be Our ideal would be within 200 feet of the historic gravel road. We don't know what this dimension is exactly, or 75 feet of the historic gravel road. That's our proposal for this. The rest of the conditions we're aware of and agreeable to, obviously, on that. But it's a logistical thing and, I think, a context, putting everything in historic context. It works better for this to have it back in the cabin. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Murphy? I do. Mr. Murphy, this is a seasonal operation that you're proposing? Yes. But I don't see anything in the conditions about limiting the time. Maybe I'm not seeing. It's number four. It says between Labor Day weekend and Thanksgiving weekend during the fall season. Thank you. And what about defining these children activity? Are there going to be inflatable slides, or how extravagant is this going to get? Well, Greg's going to sort of take it as it goes and start small and see how it goes. Other things I've seen in looking at websites of corn mazes around, obviously they have corn mazes. I've seen in pictures of looking at other ones, they'll stack up hay bales and have a slide going down the hay bales. They'll put in a hay bale and they'll put a plastic head of a steer on it and let the kids do lassoing type things on that. It takes a little creativity on the part of the operators of these things to come up with the activities. But that's sort of the type of things that may be in the kids' play area on this. Well, my worry is that without any guidelines, it could turn into a bluegrass fair. It could have, there'd be no limit to what you could put in there if all we're doing is defining it as a playground or a children's activity area. So there's been a text amendment committee that's been working for a year on the seasonal recreational text amendment for increasing tourism and recreational activities in Fayette County, and they're addressing this right now, but they haven't got it worked out. And I'm just wondering if we should try to put some boundaries on this so that it doesn't come back and that we'd be disappointed in what ends up out there. Because to make a profit, you'll get bigger and brighter and louder and taller until you make a profit. And I think there ought to be some controls. Well, let me put this up on the board. I understand this is the ordinance which is being considered right now. And I understand this is a matrix of the type of uses that are allowed on here. and I don't know if you can magnify this area a little bit here so we can read that. Yeah. This list, there you go. Agricultural zones, AR. We're in AR zone. This will have farm tours, A for accessory. Hay rides, which we're proposing, A for accessory. Corn mazes, which we're proposing, C for conditional. Roadside stands, A for accessory, which we're proposing. That's basically, we're sort of in the top four or five things on this. They've been talking about some other stuff there, too, down there. See where you get down to children's rides, about 8 or 10, 12 down, yeah, right there. What does that say? Excess. That means prohibited, I think, doesn't it? Or does that mean, I think that means prohibited. Prohibited, under this proposed ordinance, yeah. Well, the type of activities in the playground are going to be involved in hay bales and the type of stuff I'm describing to you as temporary type uses in there. I have a question for staff. The children's rides, is children's rides currently prohibited in the AR zone? Yeah, we think independent of a conditional use, yes, they would be prohibited. I'm not sure they would necessarily be prohibited under this conditional use unless the Board restricted it as a condition. I was just conferring with Mr. Mr. Craig, excuse me, Craig Walker, and he's not doing this for amusement fair type rides, you know, bluegrass fair type rides and stuff. This is agritourism type things on there. Like I said, it's hard to, you have to be a little creative, and people come up with ideas. I thought the idea of roping the steer with the head and the hay bale was a pretty creative thing on there, and people think up things like that to relate it to hay and agriculture and pumpkins and that kind of thing on there. I wasn't a participant on the group that was putting this together, but I attended some of the meetings. And this took a lot of effort to get to that stage, and then this matrix was going to go back to the planning staff where they were going to hammer out the details. They were really going to try to define these things specifically. And so I think if we do this without specific definitions, then if we had the patience to wait until the planning staff finishes this work, it might be that all the things he wants to do will be a shoe-in. But with no restrictions on what he might want to do at the moment, I'd be hesitant to support this under these broad categories like children's activity area, and I don't know what that means. or we're only we're we're maybe i shouldn't have put that matrix up because that's that's a future ordinance i just did it to try to reassure people that what we were asking for was pretty much consistent with what this task force has come up with in other words that when we ask for a corn maze this committee has not decided that corn maze shouldn't be in the ar zone they've decided they It should be in the AR zone. But what we're going under is the ordinance as it's written today, which is the outdoor recreational activities. And our situation is that Greg does not own the property yet. He's under contract. His contract's going to expire. And we have to go on as it is today under today's ordinance or else he's not going to be able to get the property. And he wants to get started this season in doing it. So we're going under the ordinance as it is today. and we feel, and I think the staff agrees, that everything we're proposing to do is allowed under the current ordinance. We haven't proposed anything to you that I think would not be allowed in this zone. As I said, we're not doing bluegrass fair-type rides, amusement park-type rides in this thing. He's trying to do this. He's lived four doors down from this for the last 10 years or so, and he's lived 10 doors down for the last 37 years. Mr. Murphy, sorry to interrupt you, but would you be agreeable to letting the staff and the applicant work out a detailed list of what he's proposing, and then we could continue this to the next hearing and approve it with the activities that he would like to have? Well, I was going to be on vacation the next hearing, but... He might be able to do this without you. That's impossible to do this without me. Does anybody else, Mr. Glover, did you have a comment? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. up there, and we were discussing the same thing. You'd asked about the children's play area, and in the children's play area, we were talking about non-motorized, non-permanent structure type things. Now, we want to be careful about that non-motorized because we're going to have tractors pulling around. That's the big deal there. I'm not trying to shut you down. I just want to know what's going to happen there now and in the future. I do have some pictures from other places they've looked at. I can show you the types of things here if you want to see them here. Well, Mr. Murphy, maybe everybody's fine with this except me, but I just wanted to know that it wasn't going to get out of control. And even with all your pictures and his intent, we don't know how he's going to feel in 10 years. So I'd just like to have something in writing that controls it. But maybe the rest of the staff or membership here doesn't have that feeling. How would we address the children's rights and getting a better definition perhaps in dealing with the non-motorized question? Off the top of our heads and on the fly, I cannot come up with a magic answer for you at this moment. If we approve this, do we not have to address that one condition where they've requested to use the cabin? Yes. I mean, that needs to be reworded, does it not? Yes. The applicants basically have asked for a revision number six on the last two lines, changing the number 75 feet and areas identified as existing pavement. It sounded to me as if they wanted that to read areas identified as existing gravel. Do we need to put that up there and include that in? We'll be glad to do it. I'm not sure the staff's in agreement, but we'll be glad to put that up there for you. Does anybody have any other questions? I know we have two modifications to the conditions. I understand Mr. Griggs' concerns, but I think the board is ready to move forward. Does staff have anything that they'd like to add? We'll put the revised six up there that the applicant has asked for. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salee. Mr. Murphy? Yes. Could we perhaps define the children's rides as non-amusement park or fair type motorized rides? Yes, we think so. Could we add that as a condition, as condition number nine? As long as we know that children can ride on hay rides. we're not prohibiting tractors from taking kids around on them we'll try and draft that as a condition here thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. types of rides except for hay rides. That would then leave the motorized hay ride a possibility under the issues. Mr. Murphy, what do you think, you and your client? Think about that. We think that would work. I mean, Greg can't think of anything that's not covered by that. Excuse me. Mr. Murphy, on that condition number one where we've changed that from 60 feet to 250 feet, wasn't that where you were trying to get the activities back at the cabin? That's number six. That's number six. That's the number one was just the buffer zone from the 10-acre track. So this allows the corn maze to be up closer to the road. Perfect. Thank you. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Murphy or the applicant? And are you satisfied with the ninth condition? All right. With that said, the Chair will entertain a motion with the following nine conditions and the modifications on item two and item six. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2013-3, Greg Walker, Trace Investments, LLCs, appeal for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor recreational facility, pumpkin farm activities in the agricultural zone at 3898 4054 Haley Road, as recommended by staff and subject to the nine revised conditions as posted. Thank you, Ms. Weyer. Mr. Glover, second. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye, please. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Mr. Griggs opposed. No, no, I didn't oppose. I just was late. Oh, very good. You just wanted to emphasize that aye. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Your motion passes. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Thank you. Item 2013, number four, George Gilpin, the applicant here. He is. Would you state your name for the record, please? Jack Stewart. Mr. Stewart, you and your client, Rick, have you read the recommendations by staff, which they have recommended to approve, subject to five conditions? Do you agree to those conditions? Yes, sir. Yes, we do. Are there any questions from the board? Mr. Griggs? I'm just going to make a motion. If there's no comment from the board, the chair will entertain a motion. I'd like to move that we approve C-2013-4, George Gilpin's appeal for conditional use permit, to expand an existing veterinary clinic in an AU zone at 1230 Armstrong Mill Road, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the five conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. A second? Second. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck, Mr. Stewart. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. The next item, Pike Spragans, item 2013. State your name for the record, please. Pike Spragans. Mr. Spragans, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. Does the staff have any questions? Does the board have any questions? I do. I'd just like to understand what you're doing. I didn't quite get it from the staff report, so if you would explain, I'd appreciate it. Certainly. What I have is a process that I've developed where I can apply texture to rubber, plastic, polymer products that can't be applied in a mold. I'm doing it in very small, single-item quantities right now, kind of experimenting to see if there's a market for it. I don't want to make a capital investment. I don't want to go out and get a lease. I want to try to do it one at a time with the molding companies that are here in Lexington, other customers that might be around, and see if I can develop a business for myself. Would you give me an example of something you've done? All right, let's say Toyota has a specific tool, and a worker has to use this all the time. and it requires a grip or a texture that that employer or that worker can hold on to it. There are certain things that you can do in injection molds and certain things you can't. I can apply a process by hand to that tool to apply a grip that's more abrasive than you could get out of an injection molded process. Is that a patented? Do you have a patented? Not yet. Are you taking a chance that somebody might patent your idea? Well, I have a proprietary process, and they came out and looked at my process, and I'm trying to keep it as secret as I can until I decide if I want to make this investment in it. Okay. Anybody else from the board have any questions? If not, then Cheryl will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C2013-5 Pike Spragans' appeal for conditional use permit for a home occupation in a single-family residential R1C zone at 384 Ashmore Drive, that home occupation being the customization of hand tools based on the staff's recommendation and for conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. We have a second. Second. Mr. Glover, all in favor, sign by by saying aye, please. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Emmons, have we heard from the applicant from El Puerto Rio Mexican Bar and Grill? No, sir. I have not received an e-mail from them, a communication from them. Based off of my phone call earlier today, my best advice to the board, and especially considering that we've got someone in the audience here for that, would be to postpone this until your February hearing. And if the applicant did withdraw their application before the next legal ad has to go out, then the staff will just note that under staff items that it has been withdrawn. Otherwise, without the applicant here to represent herself and the fact that the staff is recommending disapproval of this application, I feel fairly uncomfortable with going ahead with this application at today's hearing. That would leave it. And for our one neighbor who did come down here today, if she'll give me her e-mail, if I do receive the withdrawal e-mail, I will let her know via e-mail that she doesn't have to come down on February 22nd if we receive that. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. I've got an idea. Because these people, the opposition, sat through this entire meeting and have gotten nothing done, why don't we hear this case without the applicant, take their testimony, and then it's on the record and they don't have to come back? I think that's a good idea. Is that very good? Ma'am, would you like to come forward, please? Please state your name for the record. My name is Susan Griffin, and I live on Traveler Road behind the property in question here, behind this property that wants to put in a... And, Ms. Griffin, you're aware that these folks have appealed for a conditional use to offer live entertainment and dancing accessory to a restaurant, bar, and grill and a neighborhood business zone at 1765 Alexandra. And as we have indicated, the staff has recommended disapproval. But, per Mr. Griggs, we'd love to hear your comments. Well, I agree with the recommendations of the staff. I live, my backyard backs up to the back of this business. and my concern, we have a very, very quiet neighborhood, very quiet, and that was one of the considerations when we bought this house eight years ago because we use our backyard in the spring, summer, and fall continuously, and we entertain there, and I speak on behalf of my neighbors on each side of me who are in their 80s and could not be here today, But they as well are concerned about the noise factor. There's a back door. Actually, I think there are two back doors in this business. My concern is that because you're forced to go outside and smoke these days, I'm concerned that the back door would be open, that there would be congregating in the alley. There's an alley between the buildings in my backyard. There would be congregating in the alley and lots of noise, and who knows what would go on back there. And, you know, as a property owner, I think I'm justified in being concerned about that and that our peace would be disturbed. So I strongly agree with the recommendation of the staff to disapprove this request. Thank you, Ms. Griffin. Does anybody on the board have any questions for Ms. Griffin? If they come back next month, we'll remember this. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. I think the staff is recommending moving us to the February Board of Adjustment meeting. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Second. I'd like to, since Ms. Griffin has made the effort to come down here, I'd hate for the applicant to show up and we forget about this. Let's make sure that she knows if they're on for next month and if she wants to come back. Well, I can call. I'll certainly call and make sure because this is pretty important to me. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Griffin. The 22nd, is that the day you're saying? Is that the date, Ms. Remens, for our next? Yes, February 22nd. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Griffin. Thank you. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. I believe that that is the agenda. And we do have a revocation, conditional use appeal, Con Robinson contracting. And we'd like for Mr. Robinson to come up. The applicant is here. State your name for the record. My name is Conn Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, before you begin, we'd like to ask the staff for their report. Mr. Marks? I'm going to do my thing first, Conn. Oh, sure. Okay. Sure. Good afternoon. This is a fairly complicated case with a lot of history, so it's going to take me a little time to get through all the information that will hopefully bring to life a little bit, the longer-than-usual staff report that we put together that all of you should have in your packets. First, if we can get the first overhead, It's already up there to get everybody familiar with the property. Do you all work as well showing up on this as this one, or which do you prefer? Okay. Subject property is 4247 Georgetown Road. It's a 115-acre farm located on the west side of Georgetown Road, right in here. It's about a half mile south of Ironworks Pike. It is entirely zoned agricultural rural, AR. In 1990, the Board of Adjustment approved a conditional use on a portion of this property for a commercial composting operation. It was a 22-acre site of the 115 acres that the Board approved at that time for composting, and it's pretty clearly identified that 22 acres is right in here. This is an aerial photo from 2010, which is the most recent addition that we can get for aerials. You can see there's been a lot of excavation and grading taking place in here. And one thing just to make a mental note of, right in here, that's actually a tent. We'll show you some much closer pictures of that. And some of this stuff here and here is actually storage containers where a recycling operation of sorts was operated for about a three-year period. and we'll show you some more pictures of that. So that's the site. This was approved subject to seven conditions, and the next overhead we'll give those. They're in your agenda. They're in the staff report. I wanted to have them on the overhead for folks in the audience to be able to look at. It's condition number one that we'll be focused on, and it's actually item D under condition number one. When this was approved, the development plan at the time was rather lacking in details, so there was a requirement that they amend that plan to transfer some of the operational details from their actual application on to the development plan. Item D requires that notes are added to the plan concerning all aspects of the composting operation. that development plan was amended pursuant to that condition, and 12 notes were added to the plan. They're not very legible on the plan, so we have typed those up. The next overhead will show you those 12 notes typed up word for word from the amended development plan. And as far as the notes go, there's 12 of them. It's note number 2 and number 12 that are really critically important for this case. Note number two indicates that the type of processing that will be undertaken is what's known as aerobic open windrow composting. And then note number 12 talks about erosion control and how much grading is going to take place on this property. And the last sentence of that note states regrading will be minimal. and that sentence on the plan is incomplete. It kind of gets at why it will be minimal. I don't want to do any guesswork about how that got left off. The critical part is that regrading will be minimal. Let's focus on that note number 12 in more detail. The next overhead, I believe, will show a 2007 shot. Can you orient that a little different, Bill? There we go, thanks. Sometime between 2002 and 2007, a major excavation project was initiated within this 22-acre site. This is the aerial photo from 2007 that shows the extent of excavation that's taken place in here. I don't know exactly when that started. Mr. Robinson might be able to fill in that gap a little bit if necessary. To get a better feel on the ground of what this looks like, in 2008 we did have inspection staff at that time with Division of Building Inspection that were on site. So if we could get those, Bill. There we go. This gives you a real good idea of the extent of excavation and grading that took place. This is a several acre portion of the site where all the topsoil has been removed. It's totally scraped down. This is that tent I was talking about that showed up in the 2010 aerial that was kind of a base of operations for a recycling operation. A lot of the rock material that resulted from the excavation was crushed with a rock crusher, and this is large piles of crushed rock. Much of that was transported off-site. The next slide or overhead will show some of the extensive machinery that was involved with this operation. Again, this is from 2008. This is rock crushing equipment, conveyors, and other types of machinery. And you can see the large piles of processed rock that were on site. The next one shows a lot of the stockpiled dirt. I mean, this site was scraped down several acres, and the dirt was stockpiled. Much of that dirt has been transported since then off-site. What's the next one, Bill? I might need to pause here briefly. No. A lot of the excavation that took place here involved the use of explosives. This is a station. You can't read that, but at the top of that, there's a little sign there that says explosives. So the extent of excavation that was done, there we go, great, thanks, did require the use of explosives to get this amount of excavation done. What do we got next, Bill? The other thing about the extent of excavation is how much of a grade change was actually accomplished there. And it was up to 22 feet. This is one corner, actually, the southwest corner of the property, where the grade change was about 22 feet from up there down to here. And you can see there's a truck here that gives you some reference for scale. There we go. So 22 foot change in elevation from there to there. The next shot will show a little different area, more centrally located within the 22-acre site. Not quite a severe change, but probably somewhere in here, 15 to 20 foot change in elevation, a vertical drop there. Again, notice it's all bare rock, flat surfaces here. Next slide. Okay, we'll get into the recycling there. So for all those photos, if you take into consideration the blasting that had to be done, the significant changes in elevation, the total removal of topsoil, leaving barren rock surfaces in several acres. I mean, if you add all that up, it's clear to us that much more than minimal regrading took place on this site, and that was what was supposed to happen, minimal regrading to accomplish composting in areas that had less than a 5-degree slope, or at least started with more than a 5-degree slope to try to get those down to a less than 5-degree slope. That's what the actual application indicated. So it's clear to us that much more than minimal regrading took place. The other thing that was going on while all of this, what we would call coring at this point, that was going on for about a three-year period at least was a recycling operation. It may more appropriately be called a building materials salvage yard. This is that tent showing some of the stuff that was set up there in the machinery. The next slide will show inside the tent. It's a fairly elaborate setup here to accommodate the recycling and handling of what might have been demolition material right in here. The next slide will show another aspect of this operation. we're not exactly sure what type of recycling it was but the staff at the time got the impression based on their site visit that it was some kind of a demolition business that was taking their stuff there and sorting through it there was large numbers of these storage containers probably up to 40 at one time distributed around the site this type of operation is just flat out not permitted in the AR zone it's permitted in I-2 as far as building material salvage some recycling is permitted in light and dust but there's no provisions to permit this type of activity in the agricultural rural AR zone if we can move on to the next this is just another part of this fairly elaborate setup to do this recycling this is I believe a weigh station where things came in and got weighed maybe on the way in and out, I don't know just to emphasize it was a fairly elaborate setup But if we could continue on. Moving forward to 2012, we did have a number of inspector, at least an inspector on site as well as myself, in the latter September actually through November of 2012. And this is just to show what continues to be the situation out there in terms of the extent of no soil on very extensive areas of hard, flat surfaces. The recycling operation has been discontinued. It was previously located back in this area. Those large piles of processed rock that were marketable, they're not there anymore, at least in this portion of the site. But what's remaining is this, at this point, unused. When Mr. Robinson applied to the board in 2000 for a temporary quarrying permit, which he was forced to apply to you all to get that, because it was documented that he was selling the rock material that was being transported off-site. That request was disapproved by the board, so he has not been authorized to do any kind of coring activity, either before 2010 or after, certainly, when you all disapproved the after-the-fact request for a coring operation. In that application, he made the statement that the purpose of that was to create these level surfaces for composting. As you can see, and this is fairly typical out there, there's not any composting going on for several acres of these flat, relatively hard surfaces. What do we have next, Bill? We'll need to flip that around. Well, what has been going on most recently? Well, starting in September of 2012, we started to get complaints from a neighbor about large numbers of trucks transporting filled dirt or topsoil off this site. And the assumption was made that it was being sold because there was different trucking companies that were coming and getting the material. So we sent an inspector out, and on two separate occasions, on different days, We followed the trucks that were loaded with dirt coming from 4247 Georgetown Road to off-site construction places where it was documented by the inspector that indeed the material was being sold. So this constitutes a coring activity that the board disapproved in 2010, and it's very complete documentation that the coring activity has continued up to the present time since the board's 2010 disapproval. Let's move on. I think that wraps it up for that portion of note number 12 about the regrading. We might need to blow this up so we can get it a little plausible. Let's move on to note number two that talks about the method of composting. This is a letter from Conn Robinson Contracting in 2008 to the State Division of Waste Management. It's the regulatory entity at the state level that has to permit composting facilities. This is a letter that indicated to them that he had abandoned the Windrow method of composting and was switching to a method he alleged was much more efficient because it used much less space and could process more material in a timely manner. And that process involved, I don't know if you all can read it, but right here, a massive tub grinder with an 860 horsepower engine. So we have evidence that the type of composting that he was approved for by the board in 1990, open windrow aerobic processing, has been abandoned. and he validated that with this letter to the State Division of Waste Management in 2008. The next slide overhead will show a picture of this tub grinder. We have never seen this tub grinder on the Georgetown Road property, but one day after doing an inspection we went over to the Cahill Dry property where Mr. Robinson has one of his primary business locations where he does mulching and recycling and some composting probably. But this is the tub grinder. There it is, 860-horsepower machine that's basically stationary while it's doing its work. This claw loader takes the material, dumps it in the tub, and this 860-horsepower machine grinds it up, spits it out on this conveyor belt to make another large pile. It's clearly not a method of composting that the board approved in 1990. Even beyond that, the question is, is it even the type of composting that the zoning ordinance allows in general? If we flip over to the first page of your staff report, and I think on the next overhead bill, just so the audience can see. I'm not sure what we'll be able to do with that, but there we go. It's Article 8-1D6. Paren A, this is right from the zoning ordinance. It talks about the conditions for commercial composting in the AR zone. What are the two types that are allowed, open windrow or static pile method of aerobic processing? We know it's not open windrow. He pretty much admitted that in the 2008 letter to the State Division of Waste Management. So the question is, as far as the zoning ordinance concerns, is it even considered static pile method of aerobic processing? We've done a fair amount of research on that question because it's important. We've looked at it from different perspectives, government, industry, and environmental advocacy groups. The next overhead will tell you what the federal government says about static pile aerobic processing. And this is a national engineering handbook, the United States Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources Conservation Service, There's a whole chapter in this long environmental engineering handbook devoted to composting. The next page, Bill, will actually say what they say is aerotic static pile. The aerated static pile uses blowers that either suction air from the pile or blow air into the pile using positive pressure. So there has to be some sort of an aeration system with static pile aerobic processing to get air in there. Air is critical for this process to work. It's a science for decomposition, the microorganisms, for temperature control, for moisture control, for lots of different reasons. Air is a critical component. The process that Mr. Robinson's converted to using the tub grinder just piles the stuff up in piles. There's no system of getting air in and out of the piles. The next overhead will give a different perspective from the industry. What does the industry say about what is static pile aerobic processing? This is from a group called Biosystems Solutions. Static pile processing in here. It says, a static pile is similar to windrow composting, with the exception that the material is not aerated by turning, rather by forced air that comes from devices such as a perforated pipe laid under the pile. Again, the same kind of thing. There has to be some system in place to get air in and out of the pile. Okay, from a last perspective, this is from, I guess, an environmental advocacy group of sorts. This is a group called COOL 2012 that promotes environmentally responsible treatment of waste. And, of course, cool means let's stop global warming and get things cool. So what do they say about this particular type of processing? Aerated static pile composting, right here. Aerated static pile composting maintains decomposition by pushing or pulling air through the pile. And down here, the use of the blowers and fans allows for larger piles, reducing land needs compared to windrow composting. So again, it's a pretty similar story no matter what perspective you take. The federal government, the industry itself, an advocacy group, they all say the same thing. So our opinion is that the method that Mr. Robinson changed to in 2008, or actually prior to that, using this tub grinder and just piling this stuff into large piles and letting it sit with no aeration system, does not qualify as static pile aerobic processing. So not only has he used a method that the board didn't authorize back in 1990, but he's using a method that the zoning ordinance in general does not even authorize. This is not a trivial matter, folks. When this issue was considered in the late 1988, 1989, it was very controversial. There was a 13-member committee that was set up by the mayor to study composting in Fayette County, and the result of that extensive evaluation was, if we're going to allow this as a conditional use in the AR zone. That's the two kinds of composting that we think should be allowed. It was extensively studied. Okay, where are we at here? Let's see what's next. That will cue my memory. Okay, this is really important. The more the story kind of gets really interesting, kind of puts things together. Despite converting to this method of composting that Mr. Robinson stated was much more efficient, and despite doing this extensive grading and excavation work that created several acres of relatively flat, hard surfaces, which he stated in 2010 that he needed for more composting or more efficient composting, despite all of that, the amount of material processed has actually declined dramatically over the past few years. This is information that we derive primarily from making an opens records request with the State Division of Waste Management. Unfortunately, they weren't able to provide complete records back to 1990, but we did get a fairly good set of numbers. As you can see here, this is the tons of material processed. 1994 through 1998, that was a fairly active composting site with, at least in 1996, over 5,000 tons processed. For some reason, there were several years here where no material was processed at all. Starting back up in 2007, look how much these numbers have gone down compared to these numbers. The amount of material processed has dramatically increased. So relative to what he was able to do before with the old method, without all of the flat hard surfaces, it's gone down. How do you compare those numbers to a similarly sized composting facility that's located in another area of Fayette County off Hedger Lane? This is the Creech facility that were the Board approved conditionally useful in 2001. Look at these numbers. Same time period, ranging from 7,000 tons to a maximum of over 15,000 tons in 2009. So for a same-sized site, this is the amount of material that was processed. So whether you look at it compared to what he was able to do before or compare it to what a similarly-sized composting facility did during those same years, it's just greatly reduced. These numbers here are like 2% to 6% of these numbers right here. So it really raises serious questions about what is sustaining the business activity at this location. If we can move on, Bill. A big issue is if the Board decides to revoke this conditional use, what are we going to do about restoring the land? Huge question, a really important question. I don't have a really good answer for you. For starters, I would like to point out what Mr. Robinson stated in his 1990 application to the Board of Adjustment. as far as closure. This is what the plan said in the application. Closure of the composting site shall entail removing all compost from the site and reseeding the land. Getting rid of the compost is easy. Reseeding the land, that's going to be problematic because we have several acres of land that doesn't have any soil left on it. You can't reseed it. It has to be soil put back and it's not a simple matter of putting soil back on top of bare rock. It's much more complicated than that. It's part of what makes Bluegrass Farm special is the relationship between the soil and the underlying limestone rock to get really good grass to grow. So that's going to be a really complicated endeavor to get this land restored back to the way it was or at least back to where it was envisioned to be if he had complied with all the conditions that the Board set in 1990, especially with regard to the minimal regrading. The best I can offer is how this is going to play out. If the Board decides to revoke the conditional use, we would assemble a team of agency folks in-house. It would be engineering, planning, probably water quality. And then outside of us at the state level, somebody from the non-coal mining branch would certainly need to be involved, and maybe others. and we would work together to develop some kind of a conceptual plan, and we'd present that to Mr. Robinson as to what our expectations were of how this land is going to be restored. I'm at the point where I'm going to sum up. I think the evidence is pretty substantial and compelling. that this entity has not complied with the conditions that the Board adopted in 1990. We've tried hard to reconcile what the Board approved with what's taken place, and it's been extremely difficult. And one of the reasons why it's been extremely difficult is there is a pattern to this particular property of activities being initiated without getting the proper permits. And the next table will kind of summarize that for you to put it all in perspective. It's Table 2. It was one of the attachments in your staff report. We can blow that up if at all possible. Thank you. So this is the timing of activity initiation relative to permitting. There's basically three major categories of activities that have taken place. The composting, of course. The recycling activities. and then there's three subcategories of excavation grading, land disturbance, and then mining activities. I've broken down into three subsets because there's three different entities involved in permitting those different twists on basically the same activity. Coring, of course, is something that's a conditional use in the R zone, so that's under the purview of the Board of Adjustment. Land disturbance is an engineering term. For land disturbance of the scale that's taken place on this site, a grading permit is required. And then non-coal mining, I haven't talked about that, but the deal with that is, if excavation of rock on a site occurs and the rock is processed and it's transported off-site, that's considered a non-coal mine by the state, and it's subject to having to get a non-coal mining permit. So these are all the activities that have taken place on this site. with composting. The court records indicate that that was started in August of 1987. The Board of Adjustment approval was close to three years after that. The recycling activity, which occurred sometime prior to October 2008, occurred through 2010 for a period of at least three years. That was never permitted, and it was discontinued in 2010, about the time that you all considered the request for the quarrying conditional use. Excavation and quarrying, the conditional use that he applied for in 2010, has never been permitted and has been ongoing through 2012. How do I know that? Well, we had an inspector follow the trucks off-site and confirm that the dirt material was being sold. Land disturbance. The excavation that I showed you had already taken place in that 2007 area pretty much confirmed that that was occurring at a scale that requires a permit from the Division of Engineering. They issued an after-the-fact permit on November 18, 2008. This is likely going to come up as a big issue with Mr. Robinson. He'll probably be standing here in a few moments using this permit as justification for a lot of what he's done. So I want to put this in perspective for you. Number one, it was after the fact. After much of the grading and excavation had already taken place, that's when an application was made to get his grading permit with engineering. Now, you have to understand when you're in a situation of having to respond to things after the fact, it kind of changes things a little bit. You're in a damage control mode, and that's what engineering attempted to do when they issued their grading permit of saying, hey, all this major excavation is taking place, we need to get some stabilization out there for erosion control to protect water quality, that kind of thing. So that's the mode they were in. The issuance of that permit did not authorize any specific uses at all. It's not on their criteria to look at what uses are going to be done in an area that's excavated and gets permitted, at least for a grading permit. Non-coal mining. Mr. Robinson was issued a notice of violation in 2010 by the non-coal mining folks. It's never been permitted. Never ever obtained a non-coal mining permit from the state. We also did an open records request with them, and no permit showed up. So several years of operating a non-coal mine, never permitted by the state. I hate to pick on this kind of thing, but this is the facts. This is what's happened at this site. Now, reconciling all this into some sort of way where we can amend the conditional use based on this kind of history just in our minds is not feasible for that and a lot of other reasons. One final point before you all either ask questions or turn it over to Mr. Robinson. I know in situations like this there's always a concern about totally shutting down somebody's business. Mr. Robinson has a very active mulching, top soil sales, recycling of sorts, maybe some composting in the I2 zone on Cahill Drive. If you pull up his business on the Internet, that's the site that is described as his business site. So just keep that in mind as you all are deliberating what to do about this. This is not going to be a total shutdown of a business. It will impact his business, no question about that. But it won't impact directly what happens on Cahill Drive in the heavy industrial I-2 zone. Staff is recommending that you all proceed with revoking the conditional use. That was issued in 1990, C-90-45. that bring into the staff report. There's four findings. The first finding talks about the extent of grading, being well in excess of what could be described as minimal. Finding number two, labeled as B, gets at the method of composting that's being used. Finding C talks about some of the illegal activities that have taken place there and difficulties associated with that. And then item D attempts to get at the idea of, well, there's all this stuff going on and we need to get this site restored. So that's finding D. I'd be happy to answer any questions you all have now or wait until Mr. Robinson's out here. I'd like to go ahead and hear from Mr. Robinson, and then I think we'll have ample time for follow-up questions for you. Okay, thank you all. Mr. Robinson, he's already identified himself to the board. I commend him on a good job. He did a nice job. I have a lot of pictures here, and I'd like to actually start with pictures. And actually starting from the very front, I had everything was going along nicely. And then at the very front of my property, I decided it had flooding at the very entrance of my property. the creek had never been cleaned out, and it was constantly flooding over the road and almost up to Highway 25. So I obtained a permit from the state to clean the entranceway and correct the flow of the water. Can I show these pictures? Can we take pictures of these? This is the picture before I started cleaning up the very front. As I said, I got a permit. This is a blue stream area, and I got a permit from the state. And as soon as I started doing this, then I had an immediate call that said I was filling in the creek, but I was trying to improve my front. So you can see how there was no place for the water to go. So if you can show them when I got done after that, this is the end result. Of course, any time I do anything out at the farm to try to improve what I'm doing out there, then there's just a constant complaint. It doesn't make any difference, but I can submit any information you need. I have copies approved by the state to go ahead and do this. So to me, that was very important. We'll go to the next step, if you like. This was the method that I used when I first started doing it. It took a tremendous amount of space. I could not get on the fields at all when conditions were bad, and I co-mingled the material together. So it was really restricted on what I do. And also, when you're using the top ground, which I'll show you all next, I reduced the material by two-thirds. Where before, you know, the top ground or the composter, all it did was turn. It did not actually reduce the size of the material. So by reducing it in two-thirds, it really helped. And also, he made the comment that my grind is, I need to show you these others. I think we need to do that. Show the comments and see if it's not there. This, at the time I bought this, this was really the state of the art. This was what everyone was doing. This was what the method that people used rather than using loaders to turn. So when I bought this machine new, it really did what I needed to do. So I was very pleased with that. So now I'm going to show you some other pictures of what a size reduction does by reducing so much. He made mention that the grinder was never out to farm. This is a very portable machine. In fact, they made a common stationary machine. It's very portable, and you can see the size of the material and what we do in reducing the size of this material. It makes us much more efficient, and it's really just the only way to produce the material. Also, I think something that's very important, he made mention, which is true, I was using the windrow method, and it was so inefficient, it took up so much space, that I went to the other method and I submitted that. I'm sure I made a mistake but not submitted it also to the city, but I submitted it to the state, and they approved my method on what I'm doing. So also I have to that effect, because I have complaints all the time. People just call and complain all the time. Whenever I'm changing and trying to improve my operation, I have copies which I'll be happy to submit to you. When the state was contacted and said that my whole operation was a mess, And so they came out, inspected the whole site, and made the comments that all the water was flowing to the retention area, which I did construct, and I had no fusive emissions, no odor problems or anything, and I can submit that if you all would like to look at that. And another thing, which I think is very important, respectfully to him, he made mention with the states and so forth, I have a copy from the city of Lexington where they're processing the material out there. They're using a grinding method like I'm using right now. I have copies of that that I could give to each of your staff rather than passing it down, if you all would like to look at that and see what the city is doing. And it's the approved method. When they started the original proposal, they said the Winroe method, and it was so inefficient that they permitted the contractor to go to this other method. Would you all like to see a copy of this? To me, it's very important. It truly is very important. Written by the city on their stationery. It wouldn't take but just a moment for you to read it. We'll give you every opportunity. Yes, I think we will. We will read it. Sir? Yes, I said yes. We'll read it. Are you talking about the process that goes on on Manchester Street? No, sir. No, sir. I'm talking about out at the city, at the city of Lexington, where they're doing all the operations. This is really important. I hope you all will read this through. Very quick. Thank you. Thank you. I have one other thing from the inspector from the state. May I submit that to you all also? It's so important, sir. It truly is important. Please do. I have copies for everyone, and I've done this purposely so everybody wouldn't be waiting down in line to get a copy. But it's so critically important, sir. What division of the state are you talking about? What part of the state? Sir? What state agency? This is the, Mr. Glover, this is the Energy and Environment Cabinet. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So this next picture that I'd like to show you is at Creech's operation where he has originally started the windrow method, and now, just like I am, he's using a horizontal grinder. But I don't know whether you all know the difference between a horizontal grinder, but I'll show you a picture of that between a horizontal and a tub grinder. And I'm going to show you a picture of him grinding material as opposed to using the windrow method, and also the amount of space that he has out there where he is using material. He made the comment that once you grind the material, now let me explain something to you please. When I use this grinder, immediately I reduce the size to the desired size of the material after one grind. The material is not ready. You have to go ahead and continue to turn it. And if you're red on this other, if you turn the piles and you aerate them and you have smaller piles, the air gets to them and that's the process of composting. And I'm sure you can read how turning the material has done it. But I've done the size reduction immediately. And it's reduced in size by two-thirds. And granted, when you see the amount that I have processed, that's why the amount has decreased because my method of doing this. And I'm going to show you a picture of the preach grinding. Show this first place here. And then picture the page processing after that. that's his new method of grinding material. That's creased grinding material with a horizontal grinder. Now, if you saw what he's done after that, you can see he piles this all over the place. He's using a loader just like I'm using, the same method to go ahead and aerate the material where it will go ahead and cure. Like I made mention, just because I've ground it the first time doesn't mean it's ready. I have to go through the process. And I'm out there myself every day. It's not like I'm an absentee owner or out at the golf course or playing tennis. I work every day. So I'm out there every day, and I know what's going on. Okay. Now, here's another picture I think is very important. He's got his site completely done. And by the way, it's taken me to one other question, one other thing I'd like to comment. The material that I gave away, a tremendous amount of material, just trying to achieve the grade that I'm trying to achieve. I've had no funding from anything else. The city had federal funding. This was grant money, what the Creech has done. And it's just taken me longer to do it. But I'm trying to get in a sophisticated operation just like they have. And here is the Creech's site. And you can see what I'm trying to achieve after that. See how nice and clean this site is? and you can see a picture of mine of what I'm trying to achieve also. And I'm getting there. There's no holes or anything like that. You know, I have a grade and they requested under my grading permit a 5% grade. You know, and everything is flowing to the retention area which I constructed. As far as, I'm going to have pictures of other. Would you all like to see the, have you all ever been out to the sites? You have? Okay, great. and here's my tub grinder grind this material and also you'll see how clean my side is out there essentially that's about it i'm sure i haven't done a very good job and of course not have an attorney probably is a huge mistake but you know i i think at times you know if you talk with a person that does this every day and is active and you know i'm trying to improve my operation all the time i'm not trying to hide anything and i'm just trying to do a better job all the time and i just can't emphasize enough when he showed you the reduction that's because what i've done and creatures achieving the same thing now you know and i started and it seems like everybody comes by and watches what I do and says, well, he's doing this. This is what we need to do. But hopefully, y'all read those thoroughly and saw that the state approved of what I was doing. And did y'all notice that they said there was no problems with what I was doing? And they approved my method as opposed to the old style windmill method. And that's what everybody's doing now. Any questions y'all like to ask? Mr. Robinson, what I'd like to do is hear from Mr. Todd, and then I think that there will be several questions from the board to you and Mr. Marks. Mr. Todd, if you'd like to come up and state your name for the record, please. My name is Don Todd, and I represent Bill Offord, Rimrock Farm, that is directly adjacent to the property. Let me begin by saying that I thought staff did a great job on this report. I think they've covered all the bases thoroughly. They've given you the same arguments that we gave you back in 2010 and probably even prior to that. I would just want to underscore a few points and maybe address some additional points to you. We took photographs as well. Jim, you're going to go ahead. Real quick. The first two are typical windrow mulching system, and this is out off of Russell Cave Road at the old 505 farm there. And as you can see, they didn't take the topsoil off. That's pictures one and two. They just statically put the muck in piles, and then the machine comes along and rotates it. And I think it has propane gas tanks in it that heats it up and helps break down the process. But that was what was intended when we passed that, we call it the MUC or the composting ordinance, back in the, I guess it was late 80s, early 90s, or later than that, I'm sorry. When was that, 96, 97 time frame? The intent was at that point to at least provide an opportunity for this to be done. And as you can note in reviewing the record from the staff, that Mr. Robinson started this process back then without a permit. And they had to step in and give him a permit and then go through the process of legislating the ordinance so as to have some guidelines, oversight, protection. So that's just the first instance. And as I told you in 2010, he never asks for permission. He always asks for forgiveness. And that's exactly what we're seeing this again. It just keeps going on and on and on. Our position is the muck processing is a pretext. It's a front. What this man, in my opinion, has done over the years is continually quarry and sell topsoil. And if you look at those pictures that we've given you, starting with pictures three through eight, I mean, if you look at picture seven in particular, the scope of mining and the scope of taking rock off that land not to mention the topsoil it's horrific I mean there are millions of tons of rock and soil that's been sold off of this property over the years that's where he's made his money he doesn't make any money in composting that was underscored by what Jim told you over the years his actual number of tons of processed milk it's nominal I mean, this is a quarrying operation that's been bootlegging in that location for years. And this is exactly what we tried to prevent when we passed the composting ordinance and then the quarrying ordinance for this kind of process. And he continues just to ignore us. I mean, Bill would call my office every time these trucks were coming in, and then we would call the staff, and the staff would send somebody out, And they would follow these people. You know, Henkel Construction, there are several different trucking firms that were hauling this dirt forever and ever. And they finally cited him and told him that he could not do it. And it wasn't two or three weeks later he was doing the same thing again. I mean, you know, what can you do? You've got, you're in the position to make a decision to take away this permit, and you should. And most importantly, I mean, the community is going to look at this and see whether or not we have any enforcement capability down here. I mean, if there's ever a case where one should be taken away in my 40 years of being involved in this, this is it. But most importantly is how are we going to handle the reclamation issue? To me, that's where we have to show our teeth. I mean, this is a circumstance, and I think Jim's outlined a good proposal, that staff and the state people get together and develop a reclamation plan just like they do in the mountains and direct that he reclaim the property, post a bond. If he doesn't do it, sue him. Make him do it. If you don't stand your ground at this point in time, then conditional use permits, in essence, become just a free permit to do whatever you want because there's no enforcement behind it. It's tough to do. It's tough to take it away. But I think you've got to stand your ground. And Bill will tell you here in a moment that he's lived through this for the last 10 years or so. trucks going all day and all night, dynamiting, rock being sold on and off. And, you know, this is right on top of the Royal Springs Aquifer. I mean, this is a really environmentally sensitive area. Georgetown gets its water from this particular area. And to let this kind of activity go on in 2010, I was shocked. But, you know, you've got circumstances here where there's a water quality issue. He says he has a retention basin. I don't believe that's accurate. I don't think it's functioning properly. certainly not with what changes he's made in grading and blasting and removal. And then the recycling. I mean, you know, Con just talked to you about, you know, the muck processing, the composting. Never addressed the question of rock pouring. Didn't tell you anything about that. Didn't tell you about the recycling operation that he had out there, the dynamite that he stored out on site without a permit, without inspection. Yeah, this is fraught with abuse. I don't need to belabor the point. And I think, again, the staff did a great job in outlining it for you, and I ask that you take the step that's necessary here. And most importantly, address the question of reclamation, because that's key to this particular property. I mean, he could just walk away from this. He might have this in a separate corporation. I don't know, file bankruptcy on that corporation and walk away from it. So I'd ask you to make him reclaim this land, because it affects his neighbors, and, you know, you're the only folks they're going to rely upon to take that action. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Robinson, I'd like for you to come back up here if you'd like to, to specifically address the coring and the soil, the commercial use of the property. Like I made mention, I've been given this material away, trying to achieve the grade. You know, I don't have any kind of funding, so I've given away material that's gone out on Parris Pike. Granted, they came and got it free. And I said, you can have the material if you load it. But the material the other day where we've done it, I said, you can have the material. They said, well, we can't load it right now. Would you, what would you, could you load this for? And I said, well, if you just pay me to load it, yeah, I'll be happy to do that. But not only that, I've supplied material to churches. I don't know, Frankfort Park, the roundabout. All this material was given away for free. Mr. Robinson, are you selling any of the material at all? Sir? Are you selling any of the material at all? Are you giving away all this material? I've sold some dirt. Yeah, I've sold dirt, but dirt is where it has not been mine. In fact, if you look on the ordinance, it said anything that's processed by a machine. So anything that's processed by a machine, they told me not to do it, and I stopped. And I had an air quality permit, and I have where I sold all this equipment and so forth. I had a hard time selling it. So you sold some of the soil. Have you sold any of the rock? Yes, I did sell some in the past. Yes, sir, I did. I certainly did. But then I didn't, well, you know, I'm not going to lie. Yeah, I did, but they told me to stop, and I stopped. But what I was trying to do was help finance grading this site to get it to a really nice condition, which the other people had federal funding, had grant money, and I didn't have any of it, and I was just trying to make a nice site. And Todd made the comment about, you know, if you notice when you read that article, when the inspector came out underwater to control. He said everything was fine. There was no discharge of water onto any other property. And it's all contained right there on site. And as far as, you know, I'm Con Robinson. I own the property. I live out there. And I'm trying to make the site just nice. And I'm there every day. And another thing, I would like to make a comment. I also have a letter which I can give you. I kept all the records in a box. I was requested by the city because they came out and inspected me all the time. And they said, I have all my permits posted on the board. And they said, Con, we'd like to go ahead and have you in the mailbox put all your other permits and so forth so we can reopen. I said, well, I'm here all the day because I'll be happy to do that. So I put it in, and after all this occurred, one day I opened the box. Y'all have a copy, or can I give you a copy, which I sent to the city? somebody came out and threw all my records in the mailbox of everything I'd done, just threw them all out on the ground. And then I sent a letter to the city and said, I don't know whether somebody doesn't like what I'm doing, but if you need to see my reports again, I live there, I have my phone with me at all times, and I'll show you my reports whenever you'd like to see them. But wouldn't that irritate you if you had your reports in a box and somebody just threw them all out on the ground? Wouldn't that really irritate you? I would think it would. Mr. Robinson, I've got a question. Sure. You had a grading permit, as I understand. Yes, sir, that's correct. And under that grading permit, that's what you used to remove the topsoil and the rock from this site, is that right? Yes, sir, that's correct. What's the extent of that grading permit? Does it allow you to core to the earth center? Yes, sir. In fact, people get grading permits all the time, and they haul off-site all the time. And I was hauling off the site. It stipulated. I had an engineer to draw up the plans and what I was supposed to do and where my retention area is. I have nothing standing. Everything flows in one direction. Does the permit allow you to take 15 to 20 feet of rock off the site? Well, it's not 15 to 20 feet. There's an exaggeration on that. There was cuts and fills on there also. Okay, well, so say maybe it's 10 feet. I mean, does the grading permit allow you to take that kind of? Well, a permit, just in other words, if you establish the grade that you want to establish, then, you know, I didn't dig any holes. You know, in everything, if you've noticed, there's no water standing anywhere, and everything is flowing in one right direction. So are you, you're disputing the fact that this is a quarrying operation? It's just removal. I'm just a removal. And if you all want to come out and get any material, In fact, I wrote a letter to you all that stated if the city needs any material at all, they're more than welcome to come out and get it, and they can load it themselves. Well, I mean, are you denying that you're using your grading permit to excavate the surface of your property, excavate rock from the property for sale, exchange, or commercial use? I'm just trying to achieve a finished grade is what I'm trying to do, sir. And I don't want to reclaim it. You know, I'm in the compost business. And just because he showed you where I had a reduction, that's the reason I've had such a reduction, because my method of using things. I don't think that, quite frankly, I don't have any objection to the idea that the grinding method of composting is a superior method of composting to windrowing. And I don't think the objectors, and I'm not sure if the staff does either, but I don't think that's the issue. I don't think whether grinding or windrowing is the appropriate method of composting is the issue that we're dealing with. I think the issue that we're dealing with is whether or not you are using this grading permit to conduct a quarrying operation on that site. And I've been out to the site. I went out there two years ago when this first came up. And I think it was probably my first, second, or third meeting because I was new to the board. And I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt back then. But it appears to me that you're overreaching the parameters of a grading permit to conduct quarrying activities on the site. That's what it appears to me. You know, as an outsider, I've been in the grading business my whole life also, And when you're trying to achieve a grade, then you can have different elevations, but I wanted one elevation. If you saw the pictures of the Creech operation and also the city, the Creech has 20 acres of concrete. The city has 9.7 acres of concrete, which they process material. And if you read that article, you can see what they need to process that material. And I'm just trying to achieve a certain grade. And Jim made the comment, oh, it's such a big deal to regrade. I mean, people haul in topsoil and regrade all the time. And there's an abundance of topsoil. I have a great deal of topsoil that I plan on getting that on Citation right next to where you've heard the new factory big-ass fans. I won't get all the topsoil there. And so if I need a topsoil. And I blend my compost with my topsoil also. Have you achieved the grade that you wanted to achieve? I'm heading that way, yes, sir. I have the grade that I want right now, and that's why you saw those pictures of the grade I'm trying to achieve right now. How long have you been trying to achieve that grade? Sir? How long have you been trying to achieve that grade? Well, when I was refused two years ago, then it essentially, you know, because you all told me I couldn't do it, So I just, you know, I stopped on all that. So I've been removing the dirt and so forth and working around and trying to get to a certain grade that I'm trying to establish. You know, it takes longer. When you don't have any funding at all other than doing it yourself, it just takes longer to do it. Okay. Thank you. Did this gentleman want to, did you want to? Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Sure. State your name for the record, please. My name is Bill Wofford. I've been on Rimrock Farm since 1972. I'm a horse farmer and I was a school teacher. I volunteer to teach at Booker T. Washington. I read a letter I sent to the paper in case some of you missed it, maybe. Someone please throw the switch. Does Lexington have a gigantic beam like the one in Batman that was fired up to call for help? If anyone knows where the light is, please throw the switch as the land at 4247 Georgetown Road is in dire need of a rescue. The land has been designated for agriculture use only, but unfortunately, massive amounts of topsoil and rock have been illegally removed for the owner's profit. If you look at the satellite view of the property, you will be appalled at the environmental holocaust that has occurred. The owner was instructed by the Board of Adjustments to cease his bootleg rock quarry as well as his illegal metal recycling operations. After the removal of over 25 acres of precious topsoil and gravel for profit, the owner was not fined. He's never been fined by the city in any capacity. He was given a slap on the wrist and some quiet time in the corner. After laying low for a while, the trucks were fired up again and more topsoil headed up Georgetown Road. The owner was caught in the act and said he was giving the dirt away. City officials found this information to be false on more than one occasion. Again, a slap on the wrist and back to the corner. Where are the fines and penalties? My mom got after me with a frying pan just for looking at cookies that weren't ready to eat. Come on, city officials, quit sitting on your hands, blow the whistle, and get out your frying pan. The owner has shown time and time again a flagrant disregard for the zoning laws, his neighbors, the integrity of the environment, and the city government. He should be heavily fined and required to return the land to its original condition. We are only temporary custodians of this pristine bluegrass. His decimated land will not even grow weeds. Someone please throw the switch before more irreversible destruction takes place. A couple of things I would like to say about this. One, I want to thank Jim, who's on my call every day. I've become very good friends with his secretary. And for some of the things that have happened out here. I'll tell you what first happened in 1990. We came down to court. There were 60 of us all against his first mucking operation. Bob Wiseman tells us there's no way this is going to happen. Because he had started it without a permit. So Bob Wiseman said there's no way it will be stopped. the next day he was hauling the city's muck out there because he was doing the work for them for free. And so all 60 of us have wasted our time and our money trying to stop this to begin with. He also did not mention he's had a fire out there in the last couple of years, a huge fire that more than one truck had to come out in order to put out because of a huge amount of heat created by all of this. In my letter that you heard, if you go out and see this, you've seen this. The two words that come to mind, this is an environmental holocaust. Now, I like the fact that he said it's easy to reclaim land because that's what he should do. And a couple years ago when we were here, and I hired a lawyer last time, they said they mentioned that but nothing ever happened because I think that he has not paid any attention to the integrity of the environment. As a matter of fact, if you guys close him down, the two things, he would haul in nuclear waste. if he can make a profit and you guys did not know about it. All right? Now, I know what's going to happen. If he has to stop, he's going to find the pumpkin man that came out of here. He's going to get a catapult. He's going to shoot pumpkins in the air and let people shoot AK-47s at him. He will make money doing something. I promise you. And I hope that if you stop this operation that you will not allow him to come in here and say, well, you know, this is agriculture. I can't make any money off of it. I need it industrial. So please, again, Do not let this become industrial land because if that happens, anything can occur out there. I'm almost done. I'm sorry. But let me just tell you what personally has happened to me. When he started dynamiting my house crack, my house had been there 25 years to not have one crack. I now have nine cracks in it. I bought a letter last time we were here from a realtor that says this reduces the value of your house significantly. Also, if I ever try to sell my farm, it's going to be really difficult to sell a farm. I hope I never have to sell it if I'm next to a junkyard like this. A couple things that they talked about, the great big white building with the canvas over it, what he was doing, there was a company hauling all the material. When they would tear down buildings, they would bring it out there. They would separate the metal from the concrete, and that's what he was doing. The noise was unbelievable. We were riding horses. I trained racehorses. More than once, from the dynamiting or from this horrible screeching, like a blackboard noise, from all the noise going on, people got bucked off horses, horses got loose. It's been a huge problem for me. I had a lot of trees die. I had to put up a wall of pine trees. They all died because of all the dust from the limestone that he was doing. When he first started dynamiting, I don't know if he knew how to dynamite. He's doing it himself. but a neighbor next door told me that rocks from the dynamite were landing on their farm. And it cracked my house, and I'm a good distance from him, and we know that it happened, but we couldn't prove it. So I've had a huge problem just from the situation happening. So we came here a couple years ago finding the rock quarry. Now, I do know some people who haul rock for a living in Paris, Hinkle Construction. They told me that they were buying all their rock from them. They bought a lot of it. and they quit because he didn't have a permit to be selling it. And then when he started hauling, so then when you shut him down a couple years ago, the muck problem has become an issue and he can't make as much profit. All the farms are doing it now, and they are giving muck away at their farms. So I can understand why he can't make as much money as he used to because a lot of farms are giving this mulch away. So this has become a huge issue for me, and I am hoping that you'll make him reclaim the land and fine him and do something to stop it because he's just going to do it again. You know? And twice he said he was hauling dirt out of here. Luckily, Mr. March sent someone to follow him. Yes, we are paying for it. So what does he do? The other day he says, I'm giving it away. Just to prove he's giving it away, he loaded it up and sent it away. We called Jim again. He said he's giving it away again. He did that just to tell you, well, I'm giving this rock away and I can have it verified by somebody. He has cheated and lied. He thinks he is above the law. And this time, we need to make an example of him. In my farm, I have lost a lot of money, and when I sell my farm, I'm going to lose a lot of money. I sure don't want to, but I am. So I'm the one that's losing. He's making money, and I'm losing. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate your time. And I've called the mayor's office. I'm going to try to get a raise for you. All right, thanks. Mr. Roffert, I've got a question for you before you leave. You do understand that this is the Board of Adjustment. we can grant, refuse, or revoke conditional use permits only. We can't fine, we can't require to do more than what we're authorized to do by statute. Listen, I appreciate you bringing this to here because this has got to come to a halt. Thank you. Do you have any more questions or anything? Thank you, Mr. Wofford. Thank you. Mr. Robinson, I'm going to give you an opportunity to respond, Don. One thing he made mention about, I'm sorry he had cracks in his house, but the people that did the blasting for me are certified blasters. They always set up a seismograph before they did any blasting at all. They have all the proper permits. I'd be happy to submit those to you all if you'd like to see them. But as far as, you know, any blaster that does that, they're always subject, you know, they're always concerned about that. So I can give you any kind of reports that you'd like to see regarding that. One other thing I'd like to tell them, I probably shouldn't do this, but one time he's wanted to buy the back 25 acres for me for a long time. And one year it was so dry and I was spreading the straw in the backfield. and he called the city and complained and said, I was spreading straw and fill. And they came out different inspectors out there then. And they said, well, sir, people spread straw on farms all the time. And he looked at me, and I'm sure you'll remember. He looked at me and he said, I wish you'd just die and this would go away. And these two inspectors looked and said, what did you say? That's what he said. Well, Mr. Robinson, I'm not sure that that's relevant to this hearing today. He wanted to buy the property. I said, you know, I don't want to sell it. It's just part of my farm. I didn't want to sell it. I'm sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have said that, but it was something I always remember. I really do. So I shouldn't have said that. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Thank you. I think we had come on up. State your name for the record, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Knox Van Ogle, as you all know, and I'm here on behalf of Fayette Alliance. Fayette Alliance supports the staff's recommendation to revoke the conditional use permit for commercial composting at 4247 Georgetown Road. Please review our letter submitted into the record for our complete position statement. The planning staff and Mr. Todd have thoroughly covered the factual and legal implications of this case, so we won't cover them again. However, we would like to emphasize the need to substantially reclaim the environmental conditions of the subject property. I'm no geologist, but from looking at area photos of Mr. Robinson's farm, it appears that he's excavated 550-million-year-old mid-Odovician limestone, the oldest rock in Kentucky, only found exposed in the inner bluegrass region. This limestone is the source of our prime bluegrass farmland, and when subjected to weathering, which Jim talked about in his report, it produces thick residual soils that are the foundation of our celebrated equine and ag and rural landscapes in Fayette County. According to the textbook, The Geological Story of Kentucky, this soil develops at a rate of one inch every 500 years. So if you do the math, it will take Mother Nature at least 12,000 years to restore the rich topsoil that Mr. Robinson has removed from his farm without proper permits. But really, it's questionable if Mother Nature could ever restore the soils on the farm because much of the limestone base has been removed from the property. needless to say we urge you to not only revoke the permit but also to use your power to recommend a comprehensive timely and diligent environmental reclamation of the property to allow such natural to allow such natural destruction to stand undermines our safety and our quality of life and our renowned bluegrass while we are not against composting and mining operations per say they must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and other applicable laws. Here, the contrary is true. We want to commend the planning staff for their steadfast dedication in identifying the land use abuses involved in this particular case. However, on a county-wide scale, planning and zoning laws are only as good as their enforcement, and LFUCG should investigate what it must do to prevent similar cases from happening in the future. Real time and effort should be spent on this initiative as it has broad implications involving government operations, resource management and allocation, and the ability to advance responsible land use activities in our community. Strong planning and zoning practices are the hallmark of Fayette County, and if upheld, they will protect our farmland while ushering in a new area of sustainable growth in Lexington. Much will be gained from this approach, and much will be lost from endangering it. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to ask the board. I think we've heard enough testimony from both sides, and I'd like to see if the board has any questions that they would like to address with Mr. Marks or Mr. Robinson. Do we, as the board, do we have the ability to put reclamation requirements on our revocation, if we so choose? I think the question is if we have a choice to either revoke or not revoke the conditional use. And what the question is, can we attach conditions to a revocation if we choose to revoke? If we don't revoke, it doesn't matter. If we do revoke, can we make a revocation conditional on reclamation? I think it's a legal question, and I don't know the answer to that. But I don't think we have the authority to fine or to... I think the most important thing would be all, it wouldn't be a condition or a finding of revocation, but it would be a statement of what's expected in terms of reclamation. Now, there are other arms of enforcement that will take the reclamation as we have to, but that wouldn't be something you all could, quote, require as part of a revocation, in my opinion. I don't think it's something that we need to do. We certainly don't want to exceed our authority as a board or put any decision of the board in jeopardy by exceeding the authority that we have. So I trust that there are other entities, other government agencies, that have whatever authority that might be needed to enforce whatever we decide. But I think, I mean, we're not the police force. We're not the enforcement arm. We simply decide to either revoke or not revoke in the procedures that we have. But I don't think we've got the power to fine or the power to condition or the power to require kinds of reclamation or anything like that unless somebody tells me I'm wrong. From our perspective, I think you're right. You do not have the power to find it be our recommendation to you that as a body, if you do decide to revoke, that you make a recommendation to the city, whether it be building inspection, law department, whomever, to take appropriate steps to require reclamation and to work in concert with the state authorities that I assume have ultimate control on that issue. Anyone else have any other questions? Well, it appears that we have heard a testimony from both sides regarding the revocation of the permit. And at this point in time, does anyone have anything further? Because if not, I'm going to ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we revoke permit conditional use appeal C90-45 Con Robinson Contracting Company, Inc., conditional use permit to operate a commercial composting facility due to failure to comply with the imposed conditions in the agricultural rural zone at 4247 Georgetown Road for the four reasons recommended on page 6 of the staff report and for the violation of the seven conditions that were imposed in the original conditional use permit. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Smith-Seconds, do you want to attach any conditions to it? Or Mr. Todd made a recommendation, and I agree with you, Mr. Glover. I'm very sensitive to get into areas that we're not. I'd rather not attach any conditions to it, quite frankly. Like I say, I don't want to put any decision of this board in jeopardy because we may have exceeded our authority. I think there are other entities that are aware of the situation. I believe that there are entities that are concerned enough with this operation that they won't let this matter go unattended. Thank you, Mr. Glover. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor for the revocation of item C-9045, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The conditional use permit has been revoked. Mr. Marks, I take it you'll take it from here. Yes. Thank you all. I believe that we have, that is the end of the regular agenda that we have. I do see that we have a couple board items. The first item is item four, number A, election of officers. Of course, at this meeting every year we elect a chair, which of course is vacant with the passing of Mr. Stout. Catherine Moore as vice chair and Jim Griggs as a secretary. So the chair position is open, and I would take any nominations from the floor. I know that we had talked about this last month, that Kathy would like to be vice chair. Barry, you would be chair, and I'm willing to stay with the job of secretary. I seem to be able to handle that. So if that slate suits everyone, I would move that we adopt it. I'll second that slate. Very good. Unlike LBJ, if nominated, I will serve. There is a motion for myself to be chair, Catherine Moore to be vice chair, and Jim Griggs as secretary. Mr. Griggs has made that motion. Mr. Glover is second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. And I recuse myself. That motion passes. I don't know what I've got myself into. Here we go. I know that there's a couple staff items. Mr. Emmons? Mr. Chair, before you get to the staff item, the Board may wish to delegate Secretary of the Board. Oh, the designation of the planning manager is staff appointed by the planning manager. We will also request action unless, Mr. Griggs, you would like to serve in that role. Obviously, is there a motion to delegate the planning manager or staff member appointed by the planning manager to serve with the duties of the secretary? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. That passes. Thank you. Very good. Now staff items. Chair, I see that we've got a couple items on here. Mr. Emmons? We do have two staff items. The first one would be the Lexington Property Group. When six months ago the Board of Adjustment approved this use with a six-month review, the applicants have never exercised their right, they've never exercised that conditional use, and it seems unlikely that they ever will. So we did not put this on for a hearing. We've just simply put it on as a staff item to let you know. So should at some time that they ever do exercise that right, we will look at bringing it back six months after they get a certificate of occupancy. I have actually had an email exchange with the Ellsford Neighborhood Association president, and they felt that was an acceptable outcome, and we're appreciative of that. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. It requires no action on the board today. We just wanted to inform you. And also there is a training opportunity coming this February 13th at 4 o'clock to 530 in the Division of Planning Office. This is an APA training. Oh, and the title is Fracking and Resource Extraction and Community Planning. Sounds exciting, Mr. Simmons. Thank you. Thank you. Does any of the board have anything else? Our next meeting is February 22nd. I want to thank you all very much for your service today. We appreciate it. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.