# Council Planning and Public Works Committee - February 12, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 12, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2869 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2869?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-02-12 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 9,707 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning and Public Works Committee met on February 12, 2013, at 1:00 p.m., with Bill Farmer presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, including approval of the previous meeting's summary and consideration of matters related to salt services, street trees, and right-of-entry procedures. The committee took three votes and heard ten public comments during the meeting. Two items—the Tree Board Street Tree Presentation and the Amendment of Article 5-1(a) Right-of-Entry—were deferred for further consideration, while the approval of the January 15th, 2013 summary and Items Referred to Committee were approved. One agenda item regarding working with FCPS to sustain salt services was presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on February 12, 2013: * Bill Farmer * Jennifer Mossotti * Linda Gorton * Charles Ellinger * Steve Kay * Chris Ford * Diane Lawless * Julian Beard * Harry Clarke * Peggy Henson No members were reported absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Approval of January 15th, 2013 Summary** [timestamp: 00:00:00] Charles Ellinger moved to approve the summary from the January 15th, 2013 meeting, with a second from Harry Clarke. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. **Referral of Newtown Pike Extension Social Services Aspects** [timestamp: 00:01:05] Chris Ford moved to refer the social services aspects of the Newtown Pike Extension to the Social Services and Community Development Committee. Linda Gorton seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 01:00:18] Harry Clarke moved to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Jennifer Mossotti. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. ## Public Comment Council members raised several concerns during the meeting regarding municipal services and enforcement practices. **Funding and Facility Usage** Council Member Stennett suggested exploring a trade-out arrangement with Fayette County Schools, where facility usage fees could be exchanged for salt assistance, noting that the school system pays for facility use and could potentially contribute to salt costs. [timestamp: 00:06:00] **Tree Maintenance and Planting** Council Member Henson expressed concern about improper tree planting and maintenance on public projects, particularly Clay's Mill Road, and suggested the need for certified vendors and better oversight to ensure tree survival. [timestamp: 00:21:53] Council Member Stennett raised concerns about street trees becoming hazards due to root damage and utility conflicts, and suggested a conversation on whether to allow trees in areas with low utility lines or to permit homeowners to opt out. [timestamp: 00:30:30] Council Member Lawless emphasized the need to examine soil management practices in new developments, noting that removing topsoil and replacing it with only two inches harms tree survival. [timestamp: 00:33:43] Council Member Mazzotti suggested that trees removed from streets could be donated to parks or relocated, referencing the Claysmo Road example where trees were moved to parks. [timestamp: 00:37:47] **Development Enforcement** Council Member Kay highlighted the lack of follow-up and enforcement after development approval, noting that landscaping is often not maintained despite initial compliance, and called for a more comprehensive approach to enforcement. [timestamp: 00:25:39] **Inspection Access and Right of Entry** Council Member Henson provided an example of a business operating in a residential area with a privacy fence blocking inspections, and noted that current law requires a warrant to enter, which delays enforcement. [timestamp: 00:52:02] Council Member Beard asked whether right of entry language would allow inspectors to access yards to check for sump pumps discharging into sanitary sewers, noting that current access is limited. [timestamp: 00:53:52] Council Member Stennett asked what changes are needed to the right of entry language, recalling that the main concern was the potential for the director to create unreviewed inspection programs without council oversight. [timestamp: 00:55:28] Council Member Kay stressed the need to craft language that targets bad actors without infringing on the rights of good citizens, and emphasized the importance of clear, enforceable standards. [timestamp: 00:48:47] ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **Bill Farmer** was appointed to serve as Planning and Public Works Committee Chair * **Jennifer Mossotti** was appointed to serve as Planning and Public Works Committee Vice Chair ## Contested Items **Right of Entry in Zoning Ordinance** The committee debated whether to re-introduce right-of-entry language in the zoning ordinance. The discussion centered on balancing enforcement needs against concerns about governmental overreach. Some committee members expressed worry that the proposed language could grant excessive authority to the director without adequate council oversight. Others emphasized the practical necessity of such provisions for effective enforcement of zoning and building codes. The debate resulted in a split vote, indicating the committee remained divided on how to proceed with this provision. **Tree Board Staffing and Enforcement** The committee engaged in a heated discussion regarding the elimination of a key landscaping enforcement position. Multiple members expressed concern about the resulting gap in proactive oversight of tree ordinances. The discussion highlighted the consequences of the staffing reduction, with committee members emphasizing the need for better maintenance and enforcement of tree-related regulations. The elimination of this position appeared to be a point of significant contention, with members advocating for the importance of dedicated staff to ensure compliance with tree ordinance requirements. ## Approval of January 15th, 2013 Summary [timestamp: 00:00] The committee approved the January 15th, 2013 summary during this meeting. The summary being reviewed documented several significant actions from the previous meeting, including the election of Bill Farmer as Chair and the approval of prior summaries from November and December 2012. Charles Ellinger and Linda Gorton were the key speakers on this agenda item. The outcome of the discussion was approval of the January 15th, 2013 summary. ## Working with FCPS to Sustain Salt Services Kevin Wente provided an update on potential collaboration with Fayette County Public Schools (FCPS) regarding salt services [timestamp: 00:01:05]. The discussion focused on exploring ways the city and school district could work together to sustain salt operations and services. **Key Discussion Points** Wente outlined discussions with FCPS about a possible partnership involving salt purchases and staging. However, he noted that the Kentucky Constitution prohibits direct funding between the city and the school district, which creates a constraint on how the collaboration could be structured. **Participants** The agenda item involved presentations and discussion from: - Kevin Wente - Linda Gorton - Council Member Stennett **Outcome** This item was presented as informational, with no formal action or decision required at this meeting. The discussion served to update council members on ongoing conversations with FCPS regarding potential partnership opportunities for salt services within constitutional limitations. ## Tree Board Street Tree Presentation Karen Angelucci presented three primary concerns regarding the Tree Board and street tree management [timestamp: 00:08:09]. **Issues Raised:** - **Lack of council representation**: Angelucci highlighted the absence of a council member serving on the Tree Board, which she identified as a structural concern for the board's operations. - **Elimination of landscaping enforcement position**: A key landscaping enforcement position has been eliminated, raising concerns about the ability to enforce tree-related regulations and standards. - **Tree placement and maintenance in new developments**: Angelucci emphasized the need for improved practices regarding tree placement and maintenance requirements in new development projects. **Committee Discussion:** The presentation was discussed by committee members including Linda Gorton, Jennifer Mossotti, Diane Lawless, Steve Kay, Julian Beard, Harry Clarke, Peggy Henson, and Commissioner Paulson. The committee engaged with the concerns presented but did not reach a final resolution during this meeting. **Outcome:** The committee agreed to keep the issue in committee for further discussion, deferring any immediate action or decision on the matters raised. ## Amendment of Article 5-1(a) Right-of-Entry [timestamp: 00:43:17] The committee discussed a proposal to amend Article 5-1(a) of the zoning ordinance regarding right-of-entry language. This language had previously been removed from the ordinance due to concerns about unchecked authority. **Key Participants** The discussion involved David Barberie, Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, Julian Beard, Council Member Stennett, and Peggy Henson. **Discussion Focus** The committee's conversation centered on balancing two competing interests: the enforcement needs of city officials and the privacy rights of property owners. The discussion reflected the complexity of establishing right-of-entry provisions that would allow adequate code enforcement while protecting against overreach. **Outcome** The committee deferred action on this amendment. Rather than voting to approve or reject the proposal, the committee agreed to continue the conversation with staff and stakeholders. This approach allowed for further deliberation and input from relevant parties before making a final decision on the amendment. ## Items Referred to Committee The committee discussed the referral of matters to other committees during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:58:40]. **Key Discussion Points** The committee addressed two primary referrals: - The social services aspects of the Newtown Pike Extension were referred to the Social Services and Community Development Committee - Martin's former referrals were transferred to Harry Clarke **Key Speakers** The following individuals participated in this discussion: Chris Ford, Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, and Harry Clarke. **Outcome** The items referred to committee were approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of January 15th, 2013 Summary - **Motion** — passed: Motion to refer social services aspects of Newtown Pike Extension to Social Services and Community Development Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music Good afternoon everyone. Well, let me welcome you to our February 12th Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. We have three or four active items in our items referred to committee. We'll start first with the approval of the January 15, 2013 summary. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Harry. What's your last name? Harry. Clark. Clark. Smith. I'm sorry. All those in favor? Aye. Like sign. Thank you. Please don't let my momentary confusion become your momentary confusion. All right. Second up on the agenda, working with the Fayette County Public Schools to sustain salt services. This is an item that we've had in committee and the Vice Mayor has asked for an update on it. And Mr. Wente, I want to encourage you to do so. Thank you, Council Member. A couple weeks ago, Commissioner Maloney and I met with Vice Mayor Gordon to discuss that particular item. We had a discussion some months back with Mary Wright with Fayette County Public Schools, as you're aware, to discuss any potential that Fayette County could offer as far as assistance and funding for our salt treatments if there were additional requests by Fayette County Public Schools for materials given a snow event. Okay. After discussing with Mary Wright, we came to find that there is actually written in the Kentucky State Constitution, it's Section 186, it's an article that is titled Distribution and Use of School Funds, whereby it states, all funds occurring to school funds shall be used for maintenance of public schools of the Commonwealth and for no other purpose. And it continues on. But that basically, per Vice Mayor, your request, there is actually written in the Constitution. It's not a statute, but it is in this, and we have that. And I have a link to that information per council request if you'd like that information as well. In addition, the other thing that we were requesting from Fayette County Schools was a list of names that would be the only responders or requestors for additional materials, and we did get that list. So I have that information as well. But I think in light of our past discussions, we're in pretty good standing. One thing, I did receive an email from another member of the school system that said that they would be interested in potential discussions with regard to our current SALT contract, whereby they may want to have further discussions insofar as adding on or potentially partnering with us. So if we were looking at additional material, we might look at receiving a lower cost per ton rate. So that's something that may be of benefit moving forward as well. So the Constitution would allow that conversation to take place? That is a good question. I haven't looked into the Constitution. Well, I mean, they buy all kinds of stuff. They can buy more salt, too. Yes, sir. Vice Mayor, did you want to have any follow-up specifically? Well, and I appreciate your having this again. And Mr. Wente and I did meet, and Commissioner, and I appreciate the follow-through that you've done. My concern was that, if I understand correctly, our SALT plan originally has been based on school bus routes, and we've included a lot of information about where we needed to be salting based on where the schools felt it was important. But now we've gotten more requests. and so my concern was, number one, the money, and number two, who could do the requesting. And so I think this addresses it to a certain degree, and Mr. Farmer, you have an excellent point in whether the school system could purchase salt. Of course, the question is whether the Constitution would prohibit them from putting it on a public street. or giving it to us. And I think another aspect of that discussion would be staging, because obviously we prepare just for our own roadways and right-of-way. It would be imperative that if we did partner with Fayette County to increase our requests or our orders, that they would have a staging area just for their campuses as well, because I don't think we'd be able to accommodate that. In a similar sense, we once had a partnership with the University of Kentucky whereby we would provide their salt, and we had to eliminate that just because of our own needs. It's an economy of scale thing, I think, in the valid analysis. Yes, that's exactly right, economy of scale. And, I mean, I think in the long run it's an excellent thing that you're talking with them and we're partnering. We have to do that to be sure we can keep the roads open for our schools and those kinds of things, but just to be sure that we're doing it in a way that it uses the taxpayer dollars in a proper way. So thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Kevin, I hate to go a step further than what you just explained to us, but have we asked any other avenues of funding assistance with the schools? I know they can't give us direct money for SALT, but we pay them money for usage of facilities. Is there a way to look at that as a trade-out? Can we have a better agreement with them on the facilities usage? I know a lot of us even have neighborhood means. We have to pay to be able to utilize the school. That's an excellent question. We actually haven't ventured them at Avenue at this point, Council Member for Senate. We're spending money to help them. Maybe they can work with us on another angle. That's a direct contribution. That's a very valid point. and maybe something that we could discuss in a future time. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, I guess I want to know more. So I don't want to turn this out of committee, but it sounds like you had an excellent conversation with Mary Wright, who's an excellent person there. So you've got two. What else did you talk about? Anything constructive? It was virtually those two points that we needed some clarification on at this point. Well, and he's giving you kind of a follow-up conversational point. And I agree. I think that's an excellent point. And then did you all kind of agree to meet again at some time and then not too distant? We keep a constant open dialogue with Fayette County because it's absolutely necessary, especially when we're talking about planning with regard to winter weather and whatnot. So I think that's something we'll definitely keep an open dialogue with regard to that topic. I would just keep open this possibility of either. maybe trading something out but for sure maybe rolling them into the contract for further salt purchases in the future and for that matter any other combinations that we might come up with that work well with them so absolutely keep an open mind when you have those meetings and keep us informed please anyone else on this topic thank you sir i appreciate it absolutely next up is our tree board presentation which begins on page five of the of the packet we have the chair of the tree Board, Karen Angelusi here. And this is a follow-up from our discussion from November where we kind of heard from you and asked you to kind of go do some homework and come back and see us, and you had done so. We're glad to have you here today. Glad to be back. We made it to three questions, so we thought we would make it nice and focused. I don't have a beautiful presentation. I'm going to talk about the three questions. You want to talk about your letter this day to January 9, 2013? Yeah, the presentation is pretty much misleading. I don't have pictures to show. I just want to talk about the three questions that I wrote in the letter to you. Yes, well, please proceed. Okay. Well, first of all, I would like to change the order. I've had three questions, but I'd like to take question number two first, because if we had a council member on the tree board, we probably wouldn't have to come here. Well, I mean, we appreciate our quality time together, but I see your point. it all together. So I won't harp on the no council person, but I would invite anyone who would like to come to Tree Board and be on our, the board would be great. If I may, and Vice Mayor, you may want to, I spoke with the Vice Mayor about this issue. You're number two, now you're number one before the meeting and was going to ask her, since it is her office, to ask a council member or two to participate on your board. So that That might not come directly from this committee, but I think it falls well within the purview of my vice mayor's office. Okay. All right? One down, two to go. One down, two to go. Number two, of course, I know every department is looking to fill positions, and everybody wants a job, and everybody needs a job, and we would love to supply one. So we have found a position that has been eliminated, and it was eliminated several years ago. and it doesn't seem that important until you realize what that person did and that person was pretty much the person that decided or helped out, say, the people on Nicholsville Road who didn't, now they cut their trees down or they shape them the way, yeah, you got some nice pictures and I'm sorry that I don't have pictures today, I wasn't that prepared, I guess. It's not going well. But you can look on almost every street in Lexington and you can, in a commercial area and you can see where they have topped the trees. We have rules against that, but we don't have anyone to talk about it or go tell them. And I know it's time-consuming probably, but it's a complaint-driven system. And if Belinda's spot was filled, obviously that wouldn't happen. Is that the vacancy we're talking about? Yeah. Okay. It was Belinda's. And since she's been gone, it's still in planning. And I know that with the new government, with Commissioner Paulson, things have changed even more. So I'm not sure where it should sit. But take a minute and sell us on what this person could do to be proactive. This person could talk to all commercial business owners, even from the moment they become a shop owner, and say, you have to have so much landscaping on your lot. You have to keep that landscaping alive. You can't top the trees. And ultimately, it makes their site more beautiful, which that's a whole different thing. That makes people happy and spend more money, but that's a different thing. So there's things that they have to comply with as business owners. Right. And there's no set, well, without this position or without someone to go and do that, it's being overlooked. We're having, you know, the trees are starting to really look bad because they don't take care of them. They cut them down. Sometimes they have permits or sometimes they talk with Tim. Tim could probably address that more because he, and, of course, I invited Bob Carpenter, because he also understands that position that's not there. And it hasn't been there, and it's never been refilled, and it's never been relocated. And that's hopefully leading to the next question as we open conversation. That's fine, because before we go there, we have a couple who've rung in for an opportunity to speak with you. Okay. First is Council Member Vice Mayor Gorton. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Karen, for being here. Well, I guess my question is whether, and my question really is for someone in government, maybe the commissioner or Tim or yes, how do, for example, how would a new business owner know that they had any responsibility for the trees in their area? I might not be able to answer all of that question accurately. Currently, the landscape ordinance chapter or article 18 of our land subdivision regulations is enforced by the new zoning enforcement branch, which is located in the Division of Planning. Is that correct, Bob? And the position that was eliminated a few years ago was that person who would have met in the field with the home builder or the developer to make sure that that landscape plan was followed. So now, talking with Bob briefly before the meeting, now that position is divided up among various building inspectors. And so now we don't have somebody that's an expert in landscaping somewhere in the government that's working with the public on a landscape plan for commercial property. So part of the difficulty is we don't have a person who understands trees. Right. That building inspector is looking at building codes, fire codes, and landscape plans. They're not an expert in this particular area like the person who was here at that time. And some of us who've been here a long time said, was that Belinda Labadee? That's correct. And so was she going out, was it part of getting a certificate of occupancy? That's correct. It was a checkoff. That's right. So it's no longer part of getting a certificate of occupancy, or is it still, and the difficulty is we don't have people who understand it? Bob Carpenter with the Division of Building Inspection. And actually, Belinda, even when she was here, her duties were already starting to shift. At that time, the inspector on that job would actually inspect the landscaping. So that duty had already been taken from her because she had building permits, too, that she inspected. Okay. And that's what happens now. The building inspector verifies that the plan meets the landscape plan that was approved. Okay. So it is still occurring or it isn't occurring? It is. We look at a landscape plan when it is submitted for new construction, and we have one gentleman that reviews that, makes sure it meets the ordinance, approves it. Then the inspector that has that permit will inspect it on his final inspection to make sure everything's in and complies with that plan. After that, the only time we go back and deal with the landscaping is if we have a complaint on it. Okay. And so, Karen, I guess that would be my question is then, so initially it's done, Bob. Yes. And the checkoff for occupancy is done, but then your concern. Well, it's done initially, but the person doing it is concrete-minded, maybe. Sorry, Bob. Building code-minded. Yeah, building code-minded. Because we have a lot of issues where the trees are planted too deep, such as the new Clay's Mill Road trees, brand new. So we can talk about that another time. But it has to do with the person putting them in, A, and the person checking to make sure they were put in right. So it's not just any person. now they do check off on the piece of paper so they know their their plant and what they're supposed to plant but it's that final who put it in the ground and who's still strangling it okay thank you okay thank you vice mayor next is council member mazzotti hi karen i see you um i guess what i am following up on what vice mayor said vice mayor gorton is at the time of the planning stages, we have a development plan. So obviously on the development plan, all the landscaping is shown, what's going to be there and what's not going to be there. You're telling me no? No. All we verify on the development plan is that there's room to provide for the landscaping. The gentleman in our office that reviews the landscape plan actually verifies that the landscape plan that's submitted at the time they submit for the building permit meets the ordinance. And keep in mind, this is only on new construction. On remodels and stuff like that doesn't involve the site work, the landscaping is not reviewed. Well, I am thinking about what Ms. Angelucci said was, you know, to have one person go to all these commercial entities. I mean, I don't know how you could do that. I mean, that's a job that's never-ending. So I'm trying to think. That's what I said. If it was on the development plan initially, and of course that would be for new development, you could definitely, you know, follow up on that. But, again, going back and trying to resolve these other issues, unless you have manpower, I don't know how you do that. That's been a problem. Thank you. Next. Thank you, ma'am. Next is Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Karen, based on this recommendation back to the committee, are you also looking at where that street tree, asking for leniency on where that street tree is actually placed? That's question number three. Okay, we're not there yet. Not quite there. We're talking about the street tree, the new development plan. I just wanted to. No, you're exactly right. I know we're talking about the enforcement of it, but I'll wait until number three. Thank you, sir. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I want to make sure I understand correctly. Currently, there is a development plan approved, and it would include landscaping, correct? And in some case, it's buffers. Normally, the development plan does not include the actual planting layout. All we do is verify, our representative to the Planning Commission verifies that there's enough room between the building and the property line or the parking lot and the street to meet the ordinance. And so then when they come in for a building permit, they provide us with a landscape plan, and that's when he reviews it to make sure it meets the ordinance. If you put all the landscape stuff on the development plan, it would be so cluttered you couldn't read it. Okay, but it is approved, but you're saying it's by the building inspector who may not have the expertise with landscaping. Yes, I can assure you that Belinda trained me. I did it for several years, and Mark Newberg does it now. And both me and him have construction backgrounds and are building inspectors. Okay. I guess, you know, I'm okay with specifying what plant materials and things are used on public property. But when it comes to private property, I get a little antsy. I just, you know, I think if it's my property, you know. I'm not talking private property at all, right? Yes, you are. Well, in the development. Oh, okay, commercial. Well, I guess once you go commercial, you're not that private. But anyway, I was going to suggest, and this might be something you've already looked into, is I do know that there are issues with properly being planted and then making sure that the trees survive the first two years of their life by proper maintenance. They have to become stable. Can we get some approved vendors, like in water quality, for instance, but this would have to be on public. I don't know if that's something you've looked into. I don't think you can do that because we're not hiring the landscaper to install the landscaping. It is the builder or the developer that's hiring them. It's just like we can't tell them what carpenter to use. Exactly. But I was talking about when we're planting on public property like the Claysmill Road that you mentioned. It's like so we make sure that the folks that we use know what they're doing. Yes and no. I mean, I personally in five years have asked for one company to not come back because it's outraging to see the same thing happen over and over and over, and it's taxpayer money going straight into the dirt. So I don't know the rules, and I usually try to stay away from that part. But, you know, it would be nice if they were certified. If they were, I don't know the answers to all that. But what I just wanted you all to be aware of is there's that hole. There's a hole there. And, you know, I just need help trying to fix it. Yes, ma'am. And I do think that's something that needs to be looked at because you mentioned Clay's Mill. Same thing happened, I believe. On every street. It happens every street, every time. Yes. It would be nice if our own guys could plant it in Parks and Rec and do a great job like they do in our parks. But that's not how it works. I think Susan may have a comment. A couple of things I'd like just to crystallize that were discussed at Tree Board to frame the issue for you. With the commercial landscaping, as they explained, you have a landscaping plan. But one of the complaints I've heard consistently, and I think members of the board have as well, is a landscaping plan has to be maintained. And so over the years, you know, trees die, bushes die, things change, and that's a lot of the complaints that we're getting is that the trees were cut down or they died and they weren't replaced. So it's a slow degradation of the commercial landscaping throughout the community in general that was a concern and maybe a proactive inspection program to try to catch that. Right now it's complaint-driven, and it's complaint-driven simply because of resources. With regard to the projects the city is doing, I've been working with engineering, and we're going to start working with them more closely to provide them some technical assistance on the planting end of those projects. You know, trees are installed at the end of a very long, complicated project, and so we can provide that expertise to ensure they are planted right and installed right to give them the best chance of survival. We are working on that. Good. Wait just a moment. We have Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. A couple of comments. First, to pick up where Susan just left off, We did have a conversation about the maintenance of trees that the city is responsible for, and my understanding is pretty much what you've just said, that if the city was more careful in the way it designed those plantings, it would be less subject to abuse by the people who maintain it that we contract with, and that trying to get consistent, careful maintenance of trees is very difficult, given just the nature of the beast, but we need to do better in terms of how we design that. And that's the, those are our traits, that's in the public right away. The question about the commercial planting and the requirements that you have certain landscaping when you get approved to do a building or to rehab a building, that seems to me is a question of follow-up and enforcement. And not to overstate it, but we don't do a very good job. Either we don't have the resources or the resources we have are not applied correctly, but when you consider that repeatedly we have these instances of people who essentially have an obligation to have a certain kind of landscaping, but when you go out as a citizen and look at it, it's just not done. It's done initially, but it's not maintained. So I think there's two issues. One has to do with the way that we maintain our own tree stock and other things, and I think we're getting, hopefully we're on the road to improving that and getting better at it. But the second has to do with, I think, a much bigger question, which is about enforcement generally. When we agree, when we permit someone to do something in terms of building a development, we don't do a very good job of ensuring that they do what they said they were going to do initially, and we do an even worse job of seeing that they then maintain their property. And I don't want to, you know, that's a big question, but I think it's one that eventually we should be looking at more comprehensively. Thank you, Chair. Very good, sir. Anyone else on this part of the topic? Then from my thought process in looking at this, if we as a council were going to take under advisement the idea of replacing this, this position in the division of billing inspection i think we would make that part of the links discussion during the the work on the budget itself so i would just as it were keep the letter in committee and make sure that this number what is number one on page five becomes part of the the links consideration group when we move into the budget process that's the best way to keep this alive and to keep it part of the commentary. So two for three. Two for three. Number three, Commissioner Paulson's here. So that's nice because we would like to open up more discussion with Mr. Commissioner Paulson. Currently, developers have two options. They can plant the trees in the easement, which is between the street and the sidewalk. or they can plant from the sidewalk out about five feet. That's their two options. And that's fine and there's probably 50-50. People like it both ways. So I know that most people, a lot of, well, I'll keep my opinions to myself. It's probably good. Really? I'm trying to play both sides here. I wanted Marwan, who has retired, I wanted someone from planning to bring this great diagram that shows how they take the earth from the outside of the sidewalk to the outside of the sidewalk. And they dig down, they take all of it away. This is new construction. So it begs you to say trees cannot live in that part of, you just can't do it. They actually put back two inches of topsoil on top of feet of whatever. So we need to open up discussion on new construction should we give them only one option. Some people say if you put the street tree closer to their yard, if they feel like it's their tree, they take better care of it. Some people say if you put it too close to their home, they'll cut it down. So there's got to be some conversation opening up where to put the tree. Granted, none of our new construction will be like Henry Clay. We'll never have what I say, actually cows, but horses pulling the plow to get the streets. That will never happen. So they have good dirt there. They have old dirt there. New construction will never have that because they just take it away. So that is number three, and we talked about that the last time Councilman Stinnett brought that up. He's on deck right now to speak again. Right, so that's number three. You're on. You're on. No, I just wanted to see where that conversation was headed when the tree board had it, because I think there's another aspect to this. not so much as do we approve it during the new development phase, but all of us are dealing with street trees that are already in. This is after the fact. And we've allowed them in the right-of-way, but now they're a pedestrian hazard because they're busting up the sidewalks. And code enforcement goes out and does a good job and tells that homeowner, you've got to go fix that sidewalk. Well, the first thing they do when they go to fix that sidewalk is chop that tree root off. And in a couple years, that tree dies. So then they've got to go get a permit to get that tree removed. then we tell them what kind of tree you can put back, and it's a never-ending cycle. It's not consumer-friendly at all because the homeowner is stuck with that tree long term and has to deal with those issues. The mail carriers, they're having an issue with street trees because their trucks are hitting them. They leave you nice snow on your door that says you have to cut that tree to 12 feet in height at least, a minimum of 12 feet. Well, what do you think the homeowner does? The street sweeper can't clean properly. There's a lot of issues. Sewers. We have a sewer issue with leaves from the street trees going into our sewer system, clogging up maintenance. Again, the cost goes up over here in order to have that street tree. So I think there needs to be a conversation of, one, what we allow. I know Tim's been great on this, working our neighborhoods and educating people. But at the end of the day, if we're making them put that street tree back, we're going to get these same problems again another 10 or 15 years when that tree matures. So we need to have a conversation of what is reasonable going forward as well as what is reasonable going into that development so we don't have these issues because we're creating more problems in our sewers. Right, but some of these streets that don't allow for a nice street tree, which I think is something that we'd like to also see changed, is if it's not a setback of a certain amount, don't put a tree there. Is that correct? Four feet or five feet. You know, Mill Street, the Bradford pair on Mill Street is bigger than the sidewalk, and everything's buckling. And, you know, so the streets, bad trees, bad placement, sorry. So what we could do? Did you have that conversation? We've had it before, but what you could do is you could have the homeowner opt out and maybe donate that tree to the city park or something. It's more about creating an urban forest in our eyes, maybe not the boulevard of broken trees. Right, and to be quite frank, some enforcement efforts going back to number one have been relaxed to the point where some people on the streets have those trees still and some have just taken them out and no one said a word. And that's back to enforcement. Nobody wants to go tell someone you have to plant a tree. This isn't your land though. This is easement. The city's land but we want you to take care of it. And that's a very difficult thing to do. So there needs to be more discussion. on where we're going to be watching. Chair, this may be a good item to actually keep here and maybe come up with some new language. I know we're doing some good work on food trucks and when tenants relocate and things like that that could help us, this may be another one of those issues. Well, very well. Thank you, sir. Thanks to Council Member Lawless. First of all, thank you, and thank you to the tree board for your passion and your work and to you. I'm so glad you mentioned taking out the dirt and the topsoil and putting it. I know there's some requirements for grade in the new developments that also are a problem for trees, but taking the topsoil and leaving two inches is something I think we desperately need to examine going forward. So thank you, thank you. Yeah, and in defense of the streets, okay, I'm not just a tree hugger or lover, but to get a really good street built, you want to get that stuff out of there. So, you know, you've got to think about what you're building, support for vehicles. Or we could always put in these nice, even our city streets now have irrigation, nice tree wells, some sort of fancy soil that looks like lava rock. But, you know, we can do that. That costs more money, though. Well, and I'm specifically talking about, you know, the utility strip and the yards where it's all hauled away and two inches of topsoil are put there. And I think that we really need to examine that. Secondly, on the street trees, several years ago, I wanted to take out a street tree. And I live in an older neighborhood. and there are a lot of these in the district where the utility telephone lines and all that are so low and sagging that I offered to take out the street tree and donate a tree to the park or put it in someone else's yard. I had planted nine new trees in my yard when I bought it, and that wasn't allowed. But the fact is, the trees that are suitable on the street tree list, in the older neighborhoods on the side of the street where we have these really low, sagging utility lines, I have dogwoods and redbuds that I planted in 1994 that are two stories high in my yard. They would be in that same situation, and a lot of the trees that are approved for street trees in neighborhoods where you're on the side of the street where you have these low, sagging utility lines are going to get in there, and then they come in and top them. So that's a real problem. The good news with that is that we do it so poorly, those trees will never mature to get tangled up. You know, we've got to do better. Well, I mean, I know of several cases where, like, red maples or whatever that are approved were planted several years ago and now are in the lines and getting tops. Well, you know, it's back to the right place, right tree. If you look up and there's lines, that maybe should not be a place for a tree. Right. And I think that there needs to be more public education about that. It's like, why would I plant a tree that's going to get tangled up in the lines again? And, again, I'm all for trees and I offered to donate a tree to a park or put it somewhere else. So I think we need to just look at that, and not all approved street trees are good on every site. Every site is different. Is different, but the public doesn't know that, so they go out and spend the money and put it in. Right. So thank you, and thanks a million, and also thank you for bringing up the other issues. Thank you. I'm a big fan. Appreciate y'all. Thanks. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Mazzotti. Just circling back, Karen, in reference to the Claysmo Road, what they did is those trees, street trees that were offered to residents that did not want them, they put them in parks. So I'm not saying that that's not an option, but I think it's a real good option to be able to do that. Unfortunately, the ones that did get planted out there, we need to look at, are planted too deep. I haven't seen how deep they were planted. I just know that they were moved in different locations. You know, you have to have a little bit of knowledge of trees because what happens is after you get the mulch on there and you pull the mulch back, there's still topsoil on the tree where the nursery man put it. So, you know, people, you just got to, like, find the flair. So it's more than just looking at a tree on the side of the road. That's why we need somebody that actually goes out and says, okay, this is a red maple and it's planted properly. But that takes manpower, and I know that's a lot to ask. Anyone else on this topic, on this part of this topic? Commissioner Paulson, your name was used in this part of the presentation. I wondered if you had any commentary relating to the recommendation for an open dialogue with you, sir. I think it's an interesting discussion. I mean, currently they are, street trees are part of the new development ordinance. I think if we were to change that, we would have to spend some time thinking about the ramifications both ways. Director King was just telling me in the 1950s there was a ice storm that led to the banning of street trees until the 80s. Until when? Until 1980s. Okay. in which we then started to bring street trees back kind of slowly, and then it became a condition of new development. Just kind of my own take. I have, I think, one of the largest street trees around. It does lend a lot to quality of life, to the beauty of a neighborhood. It is one of those things I think a lot of people do like. I think in terms of how we go forward with it, there should be some discussion. but I think we do need to think about it again both ways I can understand the concern about how we're doing it but to remove them I think would lose a lot in terms of quality of life and what people are looking for housing values for developments that have street trees I think if we looked at it might show that it's pretty high versus those that don't so I think there's some good arguments for and against But I think it's a deeper discussion maybe than we're... Well, and the right-of-ways in our neighborhoods are different than the examples she's giving, where you could step across the entirety of the right-of-way between the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And that may be one way that we can deal with this is about how we go about doing those. Well, then let me ask you this. I mean, we're going to keep this, generally speaking, in committee, but would you have time or your staff to work with the tree board a little bit on this or is this something that I mean I think it needs more thought process rather than some action right now and I'm trying to get you to kind of commit to that a little bit here absolutely okay absolutely thank you sir madam chair anything else we look forward to hearing back from you and seeing you again in the not too distant future. Now, I had a question. In the packet, where is this? Is this from Tates Creek Center? Is this picture on page, what page is this? Page six? Yeah. This is Nicola. Now, where is this? I'm sorry, what's the picture? Is that Tates Creek Center? It is Tates Creek Center. Tates Creek Center Shopping Center. So these were all locust trees, I assume? No, it's funny. They're ash. Oh, pardon me. And they're all poorly mulched, and they look rather ridiculous out there. So now they're gone. I'm not sure. Do they have a permit to replace or anything? I guess that's the issue. You have this big commercial area. They're taking all their trees out. That's cutting into our quality of life, not our shopping experience, because some of us shop anyway. What a sacrifice. Yeah. It's hot. You know, cars get hot. Yes, sir. And without Martin Newberg being here, I'm not sure if we've received any complaints on that or if that's part of their expansion. I do not know. Couldn't be. It is something that, like other things, everybody notices once it happens. Yeah, and the trees on Nicholasville Road, I'm sure everyone knows about the trees on Nicholasville Road. I like them now. They've been there, and they look good. I think we should make totem poles out of them. So noted. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll look forward to more follow-up with you and the tree board soon. Okay. Next on our agenda is item four, which is the amendment to Article 5-1A about right of entry. I think this is an item that we took up as a committee, but there was... Vice Mayor, did you not return this for one specific reason? Mr. Barbary, welcome. We appreciate your expertise in this area. Yeah, you may want to ask the vice mayor to make a presentation as you like. It might be helpful to turn to page 13 of your packet. And I know I'll give you a brief summary of the history of this, and Council Member Stenet can assist me maybe or Chris King if I get something wrong. But a couple of summers ago, there was a building inspection task force that recommended a number of text changes to the zoning ordinance. And the language on the top of page 13 of your packet, right of entry 5.1.A., that was part of the original proposal that was reported out from the Building Inspection Task Force. Due to some concerns that were raised to the Planning Commission, that particular language was eliminated in its entirety from being proposed to you all when it went forward for your adoption, I think, back in August of 2011. So I think the issue is, would you all like to re-explore this idea of including right of entry language in the zoning ordinance? And if you would, how would you go about changing it perhaps from the exact language that's in front of you on that page? So what's here underlined did not go in. It went into the proposal that was made to the Planning Commission, And the Planning Commission voted to take it out due to some concerns that were raised to them when they were considering this particular text language. I think that Dick Murphy spoke on behalf of the Landlord-Tenant Association. They had some concerns, perhaps, that they wanted to spend some more time reviewing this. I think specifically, although I don't want to speak for him, My recollection is the language starting on the part of the third sentence that says that you might have the director of the division in power to prescribe and promulgate this type of stuff. There was some concern that maybe you all might be out of the loop on some of that stuff. And so there was a general concern about the issue. I think that was probably the specific part of it. And because there was also a timing restraint due to how long they had to consider these things, I think they just chose to take it out and proceed with the rest of the changes. All right, Vice Mayor, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to just say that having read the summary from the Planning Commission where this was discussed, they had very strong concerns about entry into private property, And I think they did, if I understood correctly, they did have the final motion to change to civil penalties. Is that correct? I think everything survived except this, if I'm recalling you correctly. Yes, everything else survived. There were a number of different recommendations. All of them ultimately went forward for your consideration, and you all adopted them except for this particular language. and so I think the issue is do you all want to re-explore right of entry at all and if you do what language do you want to start with in considering that issue again and maybe Chris King also could give us some perspective on this I think Mr. Chair David has said correctly I would just like to amplify a couple of points first of all the planning commission did not take it out they cannot you all initiated the text amendment and the text that is there was initiated. When the Planning Commission dealt with it, when objections were raised by some folks who had some fears of some things that we felt were not correct, to be honest with you, we found ourselves in that situation where because you all initiated the text amendment, the Planning Commission, the day it was heard was the last day they could hear it. They couldn't postpone it to explore to get more information. Some members want to know what do other communities do, that kind of thing. There was some sense, I think, made that this language would allow planning to enter private properties without appropriate restraint. And that's not correct. That's not what it does. So when it was reported back to the Council from the Planning Commission, David's correct. You all approved everything else, but this piece was referred to committee where it sits, so the legislation is technically still alive because there's no time limit on you. So you can choose to just keep it in committee. You can just let it die in committee, or you can consider some adjustment, and if the adjustments are within the realm of what was discussed by the Planning Commission, you can actually modify it somewhat and adopt it. I hope that just gives a little more. Very good. So, Mr. Chair, just to finish, to tag on to that thought, I think it would be very good if we could look at some research to see if other communities do this. I think that's an excellent idea. Has that already been done? It strikes me that we would have done that at the time that we had this in the task force. but I'm glad to rekindle the discussion on behalf of this issue at this time. Thank you. We'll keep that in mind and then go to Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. I guess I have an interest in having this conversation continued, and it seems to me that since it's already been vetted in a number of ways that we begin with some guidance from the planning staff. I'm interested in knowing what specifically issues were raised that were not deemed really relevant and what that then leaves, because this strikes me again as one of those issues where there are typically a few bad actors. We would like to craft something that will allow us to address the problems that they create, and in doing so we have to be careful not to impinge on the good actors. But the good actors always think that their rights are being taken away and so we lose everything. So I'm interested in a conversation that allows us to get clearer about what the concerns are, if they legitimately can be met, and if that allows us then to craft language that will permit us to intervene when we really do need to in the interest of public safety in the community. Thank you, Chair. Did you want to make any comments there? You don't have to. Just briefly, there's a threshold aspect to this. Forget everything else. There is no law on the books right now where it says that the Division of Planning or the Division of Building Inspection, which it was when this was drafted, this was before it came to us, that you do charge us with the review of property for enforcement purposes. In other words, right now, building inspection can enter properties where there's an active building permit because state law says when there's an active permit, they can do that. There are things in the Code of Ordinances that allow code enforcement to inspect on properties. There are things that says the fire department can, but there is no law that sets that. And as I'm sure David would say, if we go to a court to try to get a search warrant, There's just a basic question from the court. Does the government want this agency to be the one that does it? So there's just that basic threshold question. It's probably the first and most important thing. This is not going to let us do anything that we're not basically already doing or trying to do, but it will help make it clear that your expectation is that us as an agency will be enforcing these zoning provisions and should have the right, when refused entry to property, to be allowed to get on and to inspect. More or good? Well, I think it seems to me that all we need is that language and get it before the committee, and let's move it forward. Very good, sir. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Chris, can you clarify an example of this would be some issues that I had in my district, for instance, where there was a business in a residential area, roofing business, and trucks were parked on the street. And when planning, the zoning enforcement went out, then they put everything behind an eight-foot privacy fence. Is that the scenario? Sure. We don't think anything in here will let us demand that we tear down the fence or get that, but it will help us in those situations. As you know, too, the question of occupancy, you know, how many people are living, is somebody operating a business out of the house, sometimes you need to get in. Obviously, we request sometimes, can we get in, but they say no, then we would have to get a warrant. You would have to ask for permission. Ask for permission, yes. And code enforcement operates very similar, correct? I think so. I really can't speak, but I do know that they have some rights. But, again, it's not an unbridled right. We can't show up at a house and say, you know, we want to see how many people are sleeping here tonight. You know, it just, we can't do that no matter what you do, I don't think, with the law. Yeah. Well, and I agree with Council Member Kaye that, you know, you can't impede on the rights of citizens, but yet we do have to protect our neighborhoods and we should have a reasonable enforcement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. David, this is probably for you. Is there any differentiation between, and I'll use an example of attempting to find out whether a structure has, that there's sump pumps pumping into the sanitary sewer, to be able to go in the yard to determine that, not into a structure? Yeah, I think that generally speaking, language like this is helpful to have to clarify maybe what generally they might be doing in an inspection context. So I think that we, in the instances where we advise people, I mean, there become distinctions sometimes that people post property with, you know, a no trespassing sign. But generally speaking, I think most of our inspectors, to a point, might access part of the real property, but not the structure itself, not opening a fence, not something like that where it's closed off. But I don't think it's unusual for code enforcement, for instance, to actually physically be on the real property, the private property, perhaps walking around it trying to ascertain what the conditions of the property are. In sanitary sewers, I haven't looked at the exact language lately, But I think we would be empowered, particularly if we had language in place, to be able to access the property that was not within a fence or actually inside the structure without creating a real legal issue there. Okay, fine. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. As the chairman of the task force that brought this recommendation back to Council, I guess my question is the following Councilman Arkay's request. what needs to change, David, in this language that we've already worked on? I mean, you might want to invite Mr. Murphy, but I don't. My recollection is I think where they had the greatest concern was there is language in here that can be read to allow the division to come up with a program with how it would work, how it's going to be implemented, and everything else. And I think the greatest reservation on his group's part was that. Now, he may have had greater reservations than that, but that's what I recall his specific issue being was you could have, and Chris could be a rogue director and create some sort of program that you're not even aware of, and he's out there doing this, you know, I'm trying to get on your property and do these inspections. You don't know anything about it as a council, and I think the idea was you probably should. So I think that was probably the greatest issue. I thought we took some care. I think the language at the end was actually added in at the last minute to kind of alleviate some of the concern about an abuse trying to get into a private dwelling, occupied dwelling structure. That's why we put that language in at the end to try to alleviate that concern. So I think this language is probably pretty close, but I think you also probably want to get some feedback from those types of groups to see what their specific concerns are with the language as it's proposed. Right, because if I recall, the issue was, one, this body has to say our director has the right to do that. That's what the first piece does. The second issue is if we give them the right and they go and they're denied, the court wants to see that we're asking for administrative search warrants, which is a tool that the judicial system allows us to do, and that's what we're instilling in the second piece of it. And I've told Chris before, depending on the circumstances, we may or may not be able to get a pull-a-warrant. I mean, the judge is going to decide whether or not we have enough of a case to try to go in there and do the inspection. So that's never going to change. This doesn't avoid having to go through that process. Right. It just allows us another process to be able to go through in order to gain entry to inspect for zoning violations or at the time for building inspection violations because we had a situation where someone built a deck without a permit. Well, we couldn't get in the backyard to inspect the deck. so this would allow us an opportunity to ask to go do that if denied we go get an administrative search warrant and do so so i think i think we're good to go personally thank you chair speaking as chair of that task force i understand you would say that thank you sir council member k just to briefly kind of back up um what council member stenton said i think we are good to go We've got language. We should notify, as Mr. Barberi said, we want to notify the people who had objections before, come back and state those objections, and then we need to make a determination about what the appropriate course of action is. So I think we're ready to move forward. You want to have them for next month, maybe, potentially? That'd be great. All right. Other comments on this issue? Thank you, Chair. Are we good? Thank you. Thank you all very much. I think that brings us down to items referred to committee, which is on page 17 on the back here, which we went through all these things last month kind of individually, and we try to take them and move them out of the way here. Unless there's specific commentary or questions about any of these, I would welcome anyone's motion for adjournment. Vice Mayor Gorton. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to suggest that maybe on the utility poles, the repaving, the street trees, there might be a current council member who would like to take those over because Mr. Martin isn't here anymore. Okay. Well said. Okay. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. On the adult daycare centers, I think my name is on that because of the postponement for the commission report. The commission has reported, and I believe that the issue that Councilmember Ford raised is still live, and it probably needs to be back on the agenda. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That would be correct at the appropriate time. I think that there is also some concern about the definition. Right. So I think there's still some committee work to do now that the commission's report is done. All right. We'll re-cue that appropriately. Thank you, Chair. And if you could just, you want to shift it from K to Ford? That would be great. So heard. That's all right. Now, are there any takers on the former referrals by Council Member Martin? Or should we just give them all to Council Member Clark just because it's good luck? Okay, well done. We will look forward to having more of my phone. Well, I mean, if nothing else, it will help me remember your last name. You're good. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. We will shift those over, and if there's any problem in that, we'll make other recommendations. But for now, we will roll the Martin off and put Harry Clark in place of it. All right. Other comments or questions on our plan of work? Then I would ask for a motion for adjournment. So moved. All in favor? Opposed, like signed, we're adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.