# Board of Adjustment - August 23, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 23, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3094 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3094?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-08-23 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 12,425 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment Planning Services Section met on August 23, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Barry Stumbo presiding. The board considered six agenda items, taking six motions and votes during the meeting while hearing three public comments. The board approved four of the six items under consideration. These included a variance appeal for Charles Pope, two conditional use appeals for the YMCA of Central Kentucky, and two administrative reviews for Steven Fount House and Mary Beth Thompson. The board denied one conditional use appeal for Trailblazer. The meeting addressed a mix of variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews related to zoning and land use matters in the Urban County area. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 23, 2013: * Barry Stumbo * Noel White * Joseph Smith * Janice Meyer * James Griggs * Thomas Glover * Kathryn Moore * Chuck Saylor * Jeff Neal * Jim Marx * Tracy Jones * Bill Sallee * Jimmy Emmons * Tammye McMullen No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **V-2013-50: Variance for Charles Pope Property** [timestamp: 00:08:48] The Board approved two variances for Charles Pope to reduce the front yard from 50 feet to 26 feet and the side yard from 25 feet to 0 feet in the A-R zone at 290 Carterbrook Lane. Motion by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Glover. The vote was unanimous with all seven board members voting in favor: Barry Stumbo, Noel White, Joseph Smith, Janice Meyer, James Griggs, Thomas Glover, and Kathryn Moore. The approval includes conditions that the property be developed according to the submitted site plan and application, and that a building permit be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. **C-2013-49: YMCA Conditional Use Permit at Garden Springs Drive** [timestamp: 00:14:35] The Board approved a conditional use permit for YMCA of Central Kentucky to operate an after-school program for up to 48 students in an existing church in the R-1D zone at 2185 Garden Springs Drive. Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Glover. The vote was unanimous with all seven board members voting in favor. The approval requires a revised site plan, all necessary permits within 30 days, and continued implementation of parking, screening, and storm water management requirements. **AV-2013-45: Administrative Review for Steven Fount House** [timestamp: 00:16:48] The Board approved an administrative review to increase accessory garage/barn size and fence height variance for Steven Fount House in the R-1B zone at 229 Eastin Road. Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Ms. White. The vote was unanimous with all seven board members voting in favor. Conditions include that the total of three accessory buildings cannot exceed the principal residence square footage, all permits must be obtained, no additional accessory structures are permitted, and no commercial use is allowed. **AC-2013-46: Home Occupation Pilates Training** [timestamp: 00:25:10] The Board approved an administrative review and conditional use permit for Mary Beth Thompson to conduct one-on-one Pilates training as a home occupation in the R-1D zone at 902 Charwood Drive. Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Ms. White. The vote was 6-1, with Joseph Smith voting against. Those voting in favor were Barry Stumbo, Noel White, Janice Meyer, James Griggs, Thomas Glover, and Kathryn Moore. The approval requires compliance with the submitted application, necessary permits, and Zoning Ordinance provisions for home occupations. **C-2013-48: YMCA Conditional Use Permit at Todds Road** [timestamp: 00:40:15] The Board approved a conditional use permit for YMCA of Central Kentucky to operate an after-school program in an existing church in the A-R zone at 4131 Todds Road. Motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Mr. Griggs. The vote was unanimous with all seven board members voting in favor. The approval includes requirements for a revised site plan, permits within 60 days, installation of outdoor play area, shoebox-design lighting, and coordination with Traffic Engineering regarding street access. **CV-2013-47: Trailblazer Auto Detailing Denial** [timestamp: 01:26:52] The Board denied a conditional use permit and variance for Trailblazer to operate an auto detailing tent for more than 60 days and reduce front setback from 20 feet to 0 feet in the B-3 zone at 2015 Family Circle. Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Ms. Moore. The vote was 6-1, with Joseph Smith voting against the denial. Those voting to deny were Barry Stumbo, Noel White, Janice Meyer, James Griggs, Thomas Glover, and Kathryn Moore. ## Public Comment Three members of the public addressed the board during this meeting. **Everett Taylor** [timestamp: 00:29:02] expressed safety concerns regarding the YMCA after-school program. Mr. Taylor reported that children from the program were running into his driveway and requested installation of a 200–250 foot four-board plank fence along the property line to prevent this issue. He also raised concerns about a dumpster located near his property line. **Ron Turner** [timestamp: 00:47:29] opposed the placement of an auto detailing tent by Trailblazer. Mr. Turner cited the tent's unsightly appearance as a concern and worried that approving its placement could set a precedent for other businesses to install permanent tents in the area. He additionally raised concerns about potential chemical runoff and traffic safety issues related to the tent's location. **Jason Widmer** [timestamp: 00:55:35] supported Mr. Turner's concerns. Mr. Widmer, who sold the tent to Trailblazer, noted that tents become eyesores over time and cautioned that approving this installation could encourage other businesses to erect similar structures. He expressed concern that such developments could undermine efforts to maintain the aesthetic quality of New Circle Road. ## Appointments Tammy McMullen was appointed to the position of Administrative Specialist. ## Contested Items Three significant disputes emerged during the August 23, 2013 meeting: **Deed Restrictions and Home Occupation Approval** A heated discussion centered on whether the Board's approval of a home occupation could override private deed restrictions on the property. Legal staff intervened to clarify that deed restrictions are private contractual matters and cannot be enforced by the Board. However, they noted that the applicant could face legal consequences from other property owners if the restrictions were violated despite Board approval. **YMCA After-School Program Fencing and Safety** Community opposition arose regarding safety concerns at the YMCA after-school program. Neighbor Everett Taylor raised concerns that children from the program were crossing into his driveway and requested that a fence be installed to address the issue. The applicant acknowledged the safety concern but stated that the issue had not been considered during the initial review process. The applicant also indicated that installing a fence would be cost-prohibitive, leaving the matter unresolved. **Trailblazer's Auto Detailing Tent** The Board was divided on whether to approve permanent placement of an auto detailing tent with a reduced setback. Some Board members supported the business proposal, citing the visibility and commercial benefits it would provide. Other members opposed the approval, arguing that the tent would be an eyesore and that approving it would set a problematic precedent for future similar requests. The split vote reflected fundamental disagreement about balancing business interests against aesthetic and zoning concerns. ## Variance Appeal: Charles Pope Charles Pope requested two variances to reduce front and side yard setbacks in an A-R zone to allow construction of a carport and covered porch. [timestamp: 00:04:54] **Request Details** Mr. Pope sought relief from standard setback requirements for his property in the A-R zoning district to accommodate the proposed structures. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the following factors: - Unique lot size characteristics that create practical difficulty - Hardship related to the septic system location on the property - No evidence of willful violation by the applicant **Board Action** The Board approved the variance appeal unanimously. The approval included two conditions that Mr. Pope must satisfy. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Charles Pope, Mr. Emmons, and Mr. Griggs. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Trailblazer **Case Number:** CV-2013-47 Trailblazer requested a conditional use permit and variance to operate an auto detailing business using a tent in a B-3 zone. The request included two specific modifications: permission to keep the tent beyond the standard 60-day limit and a reduction of the front setback requirement to 0 feet. **Key Speakers and Presentation** [timestamp: 00:40:47] The discussion involved Barry Sanders, Fred Price, Ron Turner, and Jason Widmer. Staff recommended approval of the request despite concerns that would later emerge during public comment. **Opposition and Concerns** Opposition to the proposal centered on two main issues: - **Aesthetic concerns:** Opponents objected to the appearance of a tent structure in the B-3 zone - **Precedent concerns:** There was concern that approving this request would set a precedent for similar requests in the future **Outcome** The Board denied the conditional use appeal by a vote of 6-1, rejecting both the request to extend the tent duration beyond 60 days and the front setback variance to 0 feet. ## Conditional Use Appeal: YMCA of Central Kentucky **Case Number:** C-2013-48 The YMCA of Central Kentucky requested a conditional use permit to operate an after-school program in an existing church building located in an A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zone. [timestamp: 00:39:14] **Staff Recommendation and Conditions** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with six conditions. These conditions included requirements for a fenced play area and permit requirements for the operation of the program. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The following individuals participated in the discussion: - Ms. Kelly Estin - Mr. Emmons - Mr. Taylor - Mr. Nelson **Concerns Addressed** During the meeting, board members raised and addressed concerns regarding: - Fencing requirements for the play area - Dumpster placement **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit unanimously. The approval was granted with the six conditions recommended by staff, which addressed the operational and site-specific requirements for the after-school program at the church facility. ## Conditional Use Appeal: YMCA of Central Kentucky **Case Number:** C-2013-49 The Board considered a conditional use permit request from the YMCA of Central Kentucky for an after-school program to be operated in an existing church building located in an R-1D residential zone. [timestamp: 00:09:19] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with three conditions: - Submission of a revised site plan - Compliance with permit requirements - Additional conditions as specified in the staff report **Discussion** Ms. Kelly Estin and Mr. Emmons presented information regarding the proposal. During the discussion, Chairman Stumbo sought clarification on the scope of the project, specifically confirming that no new construction was planned for the property. This clarification was important to the Board's understanding of the request, as the proposal involved utilizing an existing structure rather than expanding or modifying the building. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit unanimously. The approval was contingent upon the applicant meeting the three conditions outlined in the staff recommendation, including submission of the revised site plan and compliance with all permit requirements. ## Administrative Review: Steven Fount House Steven Fount House requested an administrative review to increase accessory building size and obtain a fence height variance in an R-1B zone [timestamp: 00:15:07]. **Request Details** The applicant sought approval to expand an accessory building beyond standard size limits and to increase fence height in the residential zone. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the request, citing the applicant's large lot size and documented hardship as supporting factors for the variance. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Steve House and Mr. Emmons. **Board Action** The Board approved the administrative review unanimously. The approval included four conditions that the applicant must satisfy. **Outcome** The request was approved as recommended. ## Administrative Review: Mary Beth Thompson Mary Beth Thompson requested an administrative review to determine whether Pilates training qualifies as a home occupation and to obtain a conditional use permit. [timestamp: 00:17:56] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the request with four conditions. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The review involved discussion among Mary Beth Thompson, Mr. Emmons, Mr. Sallee, and Ms. Jones. During the proceedings, the Board discussed deed restrictions and their legal implications as they related to the proposed home occupation. **Outcome** The Board approved the administrative review by a vote of 6-1. The approval was granted with the four conditions recommended by staff. --- ## Decisions - **V-2013-50** — passed (0-0): Approval of two variances for Charles Pope to reduce front yard from 50 feet to 26 feet and side yard from 25 feet to 0 feet in A-R zone at 290 Carterbrook Lane - **C-2013-49** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for YMCA of Central Kentucky to operate after-school program for up to 48 students in existing church in R-1D zone at 2185 Garden Springs Drive - **AV-2013-45** — passed (0-0): Approval of administrative review to increase accessory garage/barn size and fence height variance for Steven Fount House in R-1B zone at 229 Eastin Road - **AC-2013-46** — passed (6-1): Approval of administrative review and conditional use permit for Mary Beth Thompson to conduct one-on-one Pilates training as a home occupation in R-1D zone at 902 Charwood Drive - **C-2013-48** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for YMCA of Central Kentucky to operate after-school program in existing church in A-R zone at 4131 Todds Road - **CV-2013-47** — failed (6-1): Denial of conditional use permit and variance for Trailblazer to operate auto detailing tent for more than 60 days and reduce front setback from 20 feet to 0 feet in B-3 zone at 2015 Family Circle --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon. Welcome to the August meeting of the Board of Adjustment. I'd like to call this meeting in order. I'd like to ask for all the guests, if you would, to please turn off any cell phones. And if you must take a call, please do so outside. Anyone who is going to testify today, would you please stand? Anyone who is going to make any public comment, would you please stand? Would you raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Turner, did you raise your right hand? Thank you very much. You do. Thank you, sir. Before I read the agenda, are there any withdrawals? Any postponements? Seeing none. I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to sound the agenda, and I'm going to ask if the applicant is present. And if no opposition, we're going to hear those first. And if there is opposition, we ask that you please step into the hall and try to resolve any of the cases. And then we will go ahead with the agenda and approve the minutes as applicable. The first case I'd like to call is the applicant Charles Pope. here. Thank you very much. Is there any opposition to V201350? Any opposition? Okay, you'll be called in a few minutes, Mr. Pope. The second item is Trailblazer. CV2013 is the applicant here. Is there any opposition to Trailblazer? Very good. I'd like to ask if you gentlemen could go outside and in the hallway and see if you can't resolve any of the differences that you may have, and we will be hearing your case toward the latter part of the docket. Okay? YMCA of Central Kentucky. Very good. Is there any opposition? They've got two items in front of us. The first one has to do with Todd's Road. Is there anyone in opposition to this? Could you two please step outside and see if you can't resolve? Ma'am, before you leave, are you representing the Y on the other case as well? Is there any opposition to the case on Garden Springs? No opposition? Okay. Thank you. You can go ahead. Thanks. The Stephen Fonthouse, AB 2013, is the applicant here? The applicant is here. Is there any opposition to this case? You can have a seat. Mary Beth Thompson, is she here? Very good. Ms. Thompson, is there any opposition to this item, AC201346? No opposition? Okay. Okay. Before we proceed, we've got the minutes for the Board of Adjustment meeting for June. Has the Board had an opportunity to review the minutes? And do you have any changes? I just have one comment. I believe that I left the meeting before the discussion, the long discussion in Part B. So if that could just be, if that needs to be moved up the notes. Move it up before the discussion. I was here for the vote, but I wasn't here for the subsequent discussion. Okay. We'll be glad to change that. Very good. Anybody else? Any additions, deletions? I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the June meeting with the one item. So moved. A second, please. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. You also have in front of you the July 26th Board of Adjustment meeting minutes. Are there any changes to the July minutes? If there are no changes, we'll entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Minist. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. The first item that we're going to call is Charles Pope. Would the applicant please step forward and state their name for the record? Charles Pope. Very good, Mr. Pope. Mr. Pope, staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? I have not seen the conditions, sir. I'm sorry. You have not seen them? I'm sorry, sir. I was checking on something else. What was the question? Mr. Pope says that he is not seeing the two conditions as recommended by staff. I apologize. We'll get to that. Mr. Chair, while we're providing those conditions to the applicant, I'd like to ask a question of staff. if they're averaging the side yard and the applicant can build the structure that he'd like with the average side yard at three feet, then why would we not make the variance to three feet instead of to zero feet? In this particular case, because it was going to zero feet, The averaging was more, as the staff was doing it, it's not exactly average. It's close to average, and the staff was using that as part of our review and justification for granting the requested variance. I do not think that there would be any negative consequences if it were done to three feet. However, our review of this, we did not get into the fractions of a foot whenever I had mentioned in the staff report that it averages out at three feet. That was meant to be more of a general rather than a specific measurement. And I apologize if there was any confusion. Well, would this variance of zero feet be along that entire property line all the way to the back fence, several hundred feet? No, sir. The first condition would prevent that, that the property is developed in accordance with the submitted site plan and application, and the proponent's garage is not parallel to the line, so it really comes to a point and touches that. The variance, if granted today, would not grant a carte blanche for the applicants to build a wall along the zero-foot setback line. So even though the variance is on that side of the property at zero feet, he couldn't build anything other than what's submitted on this site plan? That would be our position, and if they wanted to do something different than what is submitted here today, our position would be that it would have to come back to the Board of Adjustment for further review. Okay. Very good. Are there any, have you seen the two? I have, yeah, and they're acceptable. Does the, could I ask somebody from staff to close the door out there? That is filtering in here. Thank you. Will, you read the two conditions. You agree to the conditions. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant or for staff? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V. 2013-50 Charles Pope's request to variances to reduce the required front yard from 50 feet to 26 feet and to reduce the required side yard on the northwest side of the property from 25 feet to 0 feet in order to construct a carport and a covered porch in the agricultural rural zone at 290 Carter Brook Lane as recommended by staff and subject to the two recommendations by staff. Thank you, Ms. White. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Glover. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck, Mr. Prope. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We had opposition to the first request for the YMCA. Is that still? We're still listening to that. Okay. Well, then, since there's no opposition to the second request on Garden Springs, we'd like to ask for you to come up and introduce yourself for the record, please. Mr. Chairman, as the applicant is coming to the staff, I would like to point out that all of the conditional uses on your agenda today have had their required signs posted on the property. And for this particular case, the staff did receive one letter of opposition, which I'll pass out now to the board members. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Your name, please? Kelly Easton. Ms. Easton, staff has recommended approval subject to the three conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Very good. does the Board of Adjustment have any questions for Ms. Easton? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Oh, we've got a letter? Hold on one second then. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Irmonds, can I ask you a question? I think this letter is concerning that there's going to be additional property or additional building built. That is not the case? Yes, sir. This particular application, the YMCA at 2185 Garden Springs Drive, when the required notice letters went out, that created a large amount of confusion with the neighborhood because the applicants utilized the last approved site plan for this particular piece of property, which showed a new building and a new parking lot that have never been built. and the applicant is not going to be building any new buildings. They're not going to be building any new parking lots. And in fact, the land that's involved is now part of an LFUCG park. The applicant is going to be utilizing the existing church with the existing parking lot and they're going to be running an after-school program. This is not a YMCA where you would go to to go to the pool or anything like that. This is simply an after-school program within the existing facilities. The staff has done our best once we realized that there was initial confusion about the application. We did our best to work with the neighborhood associations and council members and get the word out. If I remember right, the essence of the opposition letter that you have before you today is worries about the new building and the new parking lot that were shown on the site plan, which are not a part of this application. The staff did address that in order to ensure that the confusion would go away. We did address that in condition one of our three conditions, that should the Board approve this, that a new site plan will be submitted to the Division of Planning after this that identifies the existing site conditions for the church, including the off-street parking, building dimensions, and square footage of the existing outdoor play area, thereby making the site plan match the request at hand. That way we will have a clean site plan for a record not only after this, but the next time somebody comes in to start on that. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Does the board have any questions of the applicant? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2013-49, YMC of Central Kentucky, is a request for a conditional use permit to operate an after-school program for up to 48 students in the existing church in the single-family residential R1D zone at 2185 Garden Springs Drive, Council District 11, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Do I have a second? I have a second. Thank you, Mr. Glover. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. I think the next with no opposition is administrative review for the Stephen Font House. Is the applicant here? Would you come forward, please? State your name for the record. Steve House. Mr. House, the staff has recommended approval subject to the four conditions. Have you read those conditions? I've read all of this, but I'm not sure exactly, but I guess, yes. Very, very, this one or this one? Oh, okay, okay, okay. Oh, okay, okay. Okay, because you're asking for an increase in the allowable size of an accessory garage barn from 949 square feet to 2304, and then also a variance to increase the allowable height of the front yard fence from 4 feet to 5 feet. Yes, sir. Staff has recommended approval, again, subject to those conditions, and you do agree to abide by them? Yes, sir. Very good. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. House? If no questions, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve AB 2013-45. Stephen Founthouse requests an administrative review to allow an increasing allowable size of an accessory garage barn from 949 feet to 2,304 square feet for a total of 2368 total square feet of accessory buildings and a variance to increase the allowable height of a front yard fence from 4 to 5 feet in a single-family residential R1B zone at 229 Easton Road as recommended by staff and subject to all of the conditions. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. White. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck, Mr. House. Thank you. Thank you. Mary Beth Thompson, would you please come forward and state your name for the record? Mr. Chairman, the staff does have two letters for this one. I'll pass those out to the board members now. Okay. Mary Beth Thompson. Okay, Ms. Thompson, give us just a minute and we'll take a look at these letters. I can say, Ms. Thompson, that staff has recommended approval and are subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those four conditions? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Thompson, as I recall from the staff report, you do have room in your driveway to park a car. Two cars? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask you this. Excuse me. Let me ask you this. One of the letters signifies by saying that the deed restriction for this subdivision says all properties shall be used for single-family residential purposes only. The government, neither the zoning ordinance nor the subdivision regulation, or let me rephrase that in the positive, both the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations both state that the urban county government does not enforce deed restrictions. Certainly that is not something that was reviewed in our review of this application. I can neither confirm nor deny whether the deed restrictions do indeed have a restriction against home occupations. From the staff's perspective, a home occupation is in allowable use as a conditional use if the Board approves that use today, as in most residential zones, as you know. So planning and zoning ordinance supersede this? That's your interpretation, Mr. Slea? I'm not sure it would supersede the deed restrictions. I think the particular use on this property that would be the principal use would clearly be the dwelling that's on the property. That's obviously the primary use. Home occupations are not accessory because they do require conditional use permits from the Board. But I think it's fair to say they are meant to be incidental to the point where they don't disrupt the neighborhood. And that is confirmed by the fact that there are so many conditions to a home occupation. I believe it's eight that are listed. And in addition, there's a pretty severe square footage restriction for all home occupations that they cannot exceed over 300 square feet. So they are meant very much to not be a use that will alter the character of a neighborhood. Does the legal staff want to comment on that? What Mr. Shiley said is correct. It's a matter of deed restrictions. Those are private between a neighborhood and the people that live there. So if the deed restrictions are going to be enforced or not, that's really a private matter. We don't intervene on behalf of the zoning ordinance to handle those. This is an interesting legal question to me. If we grant the application, could a lawsuit to enforce the deed restrictions use our granting of the conditional use as evidence against the restriction in the deed? I mean, I guess that they could if they wanted to, you know, but that's up to the attorneys for the homeowners association. and the individuals, I mean, we just, for obvious reasons, we just don't get involved in that because we don't have any authority over private deed restrictions. I'd like to ask the applicant then, I mean, are you aware of this deed restriction? No. Okay. We probably should, we probably then should explain to you what we're talking about. In fact, if the allegation in the letter is true that there are deed restrictions on your property that say that you cannot use your property for anything other than a single family residential purpose, and I'm not saying that's what your deed says, I'm just saying this is the, somebody has written to us that alleges that. If that's true, then the permission that we give to you is only permission from the Board of Adjustment to do what you propose to do. It doesn't necessarily insulate you from the consequences of breaching any restrictions that are in your deed. Is that clear? I think so. Okay. And so without proposing to give you legal advice, if it were my house, I'd be looking at my deed before I acted on this if you're granted approval. All right. Is that fair? It's fair. Anybody else have any other questions for the applicant, staff, Mr. Griggs? I was just going to add to those comments that when you have a homeowners association meeting where maybe people have to have approval for the exterior changes on a garage or something, you could raise this question and get permission from your board before you open your business. And with that said, if you're ready for a motion. I'm ready. Mr. Chair, I move that we determine that Pilates is an allowable home occupation and that we grant a conditional use to permit one-on-one Pilates training in the single-family residential R1D zone at 902 Charwood Drive, Charwood Drive, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the eight conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. We have a second. There's four conditions. There's four conditions. Subject to the four conditions. We've got to move our motion. And Ms. Myers, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck. Thank you. Oh, Mr. Smith votes no. There is one no. The others are yes. It still passes. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I think that completes the agenda, except for those in opposition. And Mr. Salee, would you mind asking the lady from the Y to come back in since we've already addressed one of her issues? So I'd like to call her next, and then we'll do trailblazers last. Thank you. Well, I should have abstained. I'm with you. I should have voted no, too. Exactly. She should have gone there first. I mean, of course, we all know. Would the applicant come forth, please? Ms. Easton, were you all able to work out your differences? I don't know. No. Okay. There are kind of two issues, one with the YMCA proposing a program there, but already existing issues with the church. so I also have the lead pastor from the church that is here as well to help address those issues. Well, very good. Well, the staff has recommended approval subject to the six conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Very good. Does the board have any questions of the applicant? I have a question about condition number one. Is the intent of condition number one to include an outdoor fenced and screened play area? as noted in the staff report. Yes. The way that I read that, it's like it's taking it out. Well, that's because I was going to mention to the board that there is a typo. There is a missing word in condition one, and we can put that up on the screen. About the outdoor, and it says notation in the site statistic, and it should say and adds an outdoor fenced and screen play area that is no smaller than 25 square feet per child. I was looking for the opportunity to speak up and correct that typographical error. But in the body of the report, the staff tried to make it clear that it is our intention to require an outdoor fenced and screen play area with this application. Very good. Did that answer your question, Ms. Blaner? Very good. Any other questions for the applicant? Does the applicant understand that? Do you understand what? That we need to have an outdoor fenced area, yes, and that is part of the Division of Regulated Child Care's regulations that we would have to follow as being a licensed child care facility. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Ms. Easton, if you would take a seat, we would like to hear from the opposition. Would the opposition please come forward? State your name for the record, please. Yes, I'm Everett Taylor, and I live at 4133 Todd's Row. If you went by the church going east out of town, my property lies right—I have an easement that runs right along beside their property. And I've talked with the pastor about it, and he couldn't really give me an answer today, which I understand. But what I've requested is for them to run a four-board plank fence down the property line about 250 feet. Now, that's not the whole almost 1,000 feet that goes down my driveway, and it's a safety issue. The reason I'm requesting to do that is to keep children from running over in our driveway and cars from driving over in our driveway. We sit about 20 feet off of their property line, my driveway does. and they have basketball goals out there and I know children's going to be playing out there and I know they're not going to be in that little self-contained area. They're not in an area like that right now with the church and there's a lot of activity there and it's growing. And what we'd like, I'm deed restricted to four-board plank fence and there's a reason for that. They want to keep that area nice and a pretty area. I go to the church across the street and our church is lined with that type of fencing. And I talked to the pastor about there's been an issue with the dumpster there. And, you know, everybody from the neighborhood and neighborhoods fill that dumpster up, and it looks real bad, and it faces right against my property line. And they told me that was being resolved now, that they were going to just try to get rid of the dumpster. But I'm not saying anything bad about them. It's not their, they haven't been doing this, I'm sure, but this is a picture of what I look at. and when I go down the driveway you need to bring that forward can you blow that up Jimmy it's not a contained area which probably should be the dumpster, I know at our church we have a self contained area where it's built up and you can't even see it but the pastor told me they're trying to resolve that and get rid of that right now which is fine you can't see that on the screen It doesn't look like it. There you go. We've had a lot of activity as far as children coming from that church lot onto our driveway. And I actually had to call the police a couple times where they sit down in the driveway and wouldn't get up. My wife was right down in the driveway. She had to stop, turn around, back up and tell me. And then I called the police to come out and they made the kids move. And then we've had different children playing on that lot, off of that lot. And we just feel it would be a safety issue. And if they could, we're not asking for them at this time to run a fence all the way down the property line. We're just asking for them to run about 200, 250 feet of fence to keep activity from the church coming over there. Cars can drive straight over that lot from their parking lot. So let me ask you, you're asking them to build a 200 to 250 foot fence along the property line, a four-plank fence. That's what you're requesting? Yes, sir. Okay. And that's going to keep the activity off of our driveway. Their parking lot, they have basketball goes up, and I know children's going to be chasing balls and it's going to come across our driveway. And the last thing we want to do is run across a child. And, you know, I think it's really a safety issue that they run something down through there. The church is growing, and it's going to even get larger. And, you know, if you have anywhere from 50 to 400 different cars coming in there besides what they have now with children coming and going all the time. There's nothing to separate our property line, which when you drive down through there, it's a long strip to drive. You hit 30, 35 miles an hour, and if a child pops out there, you're going to hit him. I think we understand. I'd like to ask the board if they've got any questions for this gentleman. No? Okay. That's just the two issues that I have. Well, let me ask the ‑‑ I'd like to ask staff a question about that. Did you all ‑‑ did that come up in the discussion of this application? No, sir. This issue was not brought to our attention, and we did not discuss it or mention the issue in our staff report. You can have a seat. I'd like to bring the applicant back up. And, Ms. Eason, you've heard this gentleman's concern and basically safety. But would you consider building a fence along the property line to protect any of the spillage or the kids going across Dindo's driveway? Have you all thought about that at all? That has not. That was an issue that was brought up today that we had not considered, and that is not a decision that I can make for the YMCA at this time. That would probably be prohibitive to running the program. I did explain that in the program that we are trying to offer, it will be a licensed child care program. So there are rules and regulations that we are required to follow. One of them is the safety and supervision of children, which requires that all children are in our sight and sound at all times and that there has to be established barriers. Even if we are not within the fenced outdoor play area, if we were in green space or if we were playing basketball, that it would still be our responsibility to establish boundaries and ensure that they were enforced. And I know that children do run after balls and children don't always stay exactly where you tell them to be. But part of our responsibility is ensuring that we have appropriate staff-to-child supervision ratios and that the rules are very clear and that we establish boundaries, whether that is a fence, whether that is cones, whether that is some type of barrier to ensure the safety of children at all times. Did you say that the pastor from the church is here with you? Yes. Maybe he could speak to that? My name is Todd Nelson. I'm a campus pastor out at Andover. We spoke with Mr. Taylor, and I think we all share his concern for safety of the children. Really, there's two issues going on. There's a safety of the children that are going to be under the Y supervision, and also just in general traffic there at the property. And as I told Mr. Taylor, I'm happy to hear this concern and want to work with him in order to get something that we both could live with. But we can't make any commitments. I have no idea what that sort of thing would cost. And if the cost would be too much, we would basically have to come back to the Y and say we really can't do this. This is something that we want to do as a benefit to not only the ACE Athens-Charlesburg Elementary, but also Edith J. Hayes. kind of a need that we've seen for after-school care. And so we wanted to open our doors. We're not getting anything from the Y in terms of rent or anything else. It's purely a ministry that we're doing. So if we had to step up and do a $15,000 fence, we would just have to say, I'm very sorry, but we can't do this program, which we've seen one of the greatest needs in our community is for after-school care. So hoping to meet that. He was saying that his covenants, I guess, require four-plank fencing, but you're not required to follow those covenants, are you? You could put up a three-foot chain-link fence. And Mr. Taylor and I also had that conversation. We wouldn't want to do anything that would create any sorts of issues for him. We actually had a chain-link fence before, and I think we both agreed it was not what we would want in that community. Well, here we're talking about child safety on the one hand, and then we're talking about aesthetics on the other. I think a three-foot chain link fence, if it saves a child's life, the heck with the aesthetics. Maybe that would help to see whether he's really just looking for a four-plank fence or if he's what he's really concerned about. Are there requirements in this zone for some sort of buffer, like planting, natural buffer? There would be if they had different zoning categories, but they are zoned the same, and so there is no property zone-to-zone screening required. Thank you. Mr. Ridge, is there some comment you'd like to make about the trash around the dumpster? It is awful, and evidently it's become widely known that it's a place to come and dump. It wasn't even in the dumpster. They just dumped it right next to it. It could have been anywhere up and down along Todd's Road. And we spent about $250 removing it. So it's something we jumped on and had Republic come out. We would love to be able to work with Republic, and we've made numerous calls because we don't need a dumpster. We need Herbie's, and they've told us they are unable to do that for us. Once they place a dumpster, they can't. So if you could give us any help with that, we would most appreciate it. So we just need a few Herbies. We really don't need the dumpster. That was a legacy dumpster even before First United Methodist Church took over the property. Is it close to your building? Are they coming up on your property and abusing this dumpster? Well, maybe there needs to be a fence around it. Yeah. Maybe. Maybe. I agree something needs to be done. We're trying to get it removed. That's the first. And if for some reason Republic won't do it, then we will definitely do what it takes to get it. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Reverend Russell. Does anybody have any other questions for the applicant or the opposition? We have before us, obviously, the conditional use permit to operate the after-school program for up to 48 students. And obviously there are some issues that have to be worked out, I think, in regards to safety, and I'm sure that Mr. Taylor's concerns are very warranted. But what we have in front of us today is this conditional use permit for allowing this in the existing church in this R1 zone or AR zone at 4131 Todd's Road. And I'd like to ask the board their wishes. Obviously, we can entertain a motion at this point. Mr. Glover. Mr. Chairman, I move that the board approve C-2013-48, YMCAF Central Kentucky's request for a conditional use permit to operate an after-school program for up to 48 students on an existing church in the agricultural rural zone at 4131 Todd's Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the six conditions. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I'll second that. Second, Mr. Griggs, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck and try to keep those kids out of the gentleman's driveway. Good luck. Thank you. I believe our last item on the agenda is Trailblazer. Is the applicant present? Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Barry Sanders. Barry Sanders? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. And the gentleman? Other gentleman? And Fred Price. All right, Mr. Price. Mr. Sanders, you've requested a conditional use permit to construct this tent to be left on the site for more than 60 days, and obviously that expires, that 60-day permit that you received expires today. So you're asking it to reduce the required front setback and allow this tent to continue at 2015 Family Circle Drive. The staff has recommended approval subject to, I guess, two conditions for the variance. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes, sir. Very good. I'd like to ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Mr. Sanders or Mr. Price. I know that we have some opposition. Would you all gentlemen have a seat for just a moment there? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, as he's coming up, the staff did receive one correspondence, which I passed out to you at the beginning of this. I believe it's from the person who is about to get up and speak. Okay. Go ahead and pass it out to us, and if you'll come up, sir. State your name for the record. I'm Ron Turner with Turner Development. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner, we're going to look at this letter real quick, and then we'll hear your objection. I'm a little hard to hear. I had a little plane crash about seven years ago. I'm just so sorry. I should have wore my hearing aids, but the batteries are dead. We'll talk loud. We want to read this letter first, and then we'll let you address the... I appreciate asking... Yeah, just hold off, Mr. Turner, for just a second. They're going to review the thing first. Okay, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. That's it. We'll read this letter, and then we'll let Mr. Turner respond. Thank you. No one. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. this morning. And then another. I'm back there. It's right in my car. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'm going to talk to you. Records are dead. Very nice. Gentlemen, are you ready? Mr. Turner, go ahead and proceed. Thank you, sir. Members of the board, I'm Ron Turner. I own the adjacent property next to 12 Blazers. 12 Blazers is owned by Mr. Harlow Lennox. I'm the owner of the building next to there called the Safe Flight. The building next to that was a building formerly of mine from my office facility in Pickup, Kentucky. So obviously I have a lot of interest in this area, seeking other pieces of property in and out, down New Circle Road, east and west. My son, Troy Turner, Commonwealth Technology, has a business up on the corner of Red Cross and Parkette. So, but anyway, I'm here to oppose this, number one, for the setback from zero to 20 foot. I've been working all the way back to Al Mitchell many years ago to clean up the corridor of New Circle Road with the Highway Department Division 007. and we were working very hard to get the cars and the Herbie-Kirbie set back off the road. If you go up around PDQ and you're even down there across from Trailblazers, they park their cars right out almost on the road. So this is my son-in-law, Jason Winmer. He's here. he sold this tent to Bering Trailblazers several months ago he erected this tent on Winchester Road a car wash called Auto Spa he did it, he was asked by the city because of unsightly and the setback to remove it he did, it's on Winchester Road next to the former Sonics which we just bought the Sonics property So anyway, I'm opposing this because if this tent is allowed to be there permanently in this setback, it breaks everything that I've tried to accomplish for the city of Lexington. I was born and raised here 70 years ago. I used to play in this area. So if we allow this setback, number one, to be approved, it will create for other people to come in front of you all and use this for an example. Barry and his workman had spoken outside. He said, if you want to oppose this, I will remove this tent this year, October 2013, and never erect it again. If I do, it will not be outside of his building line. This is acceptable to me. He can do what he wants to with the tent. And then this tent also, ladies and gentlemen, has car washing chemicals with nowhere for it to go other than a sanitary sewer. His car wash goes into a filter, then it goes into the proper area. So when you're washing cars and you're treating them with chemicals out there, it washes off and goes into the Levine right down through the Circle Road. I don't think it's what the city wants or needs. And then I have a petition that's signed by quite a few people. My son-in-law, SS Firestone, went to Paul Miller Ford's office. He would have, John Paul Miller, he was in a meeting that he would be signing this. And we understand he's got a business there. He's got a good business there. But to have a tenant out there with nothing to set up prejudice for everyone else to do it. So if they had proper surge, proper disposal of their chemicals, yes, it may be all right. But there's a building setback line, and all those is a temporary tent. And when you put up the sides on it in the wintertime, if they do use it in the wintertime, it only opposes to be a more unsightly item. So from Jason, my son-in-law, which I put in your package, which he asked for the 20-foot setback. He removed the tent, put it up for sale, and Barry with trailblazers bought it. So the city of Lexington, because I've done a lot, I've just finished the building on Winchester Road, called the Gateway Building. I think we turned tragic into magic right there by spending millions of dollars to put some high-tech people in the area, such as KCTCS, KEDC, Higgel, and U.S. Co. So they would support me in this too. So I asked the board if they would, and I agree with Barry, Mr. Barry behind us there, if you want to leave it up through October, I have no problem with that, as long as that tent does not go up on your circle road again, if you can stay behind your building line. And that needs to be documented. And I ask him if there's any other way, anywhere else you can put this tent. He's going to talk to Harlan Lennox. Harlan owns the adjacent property behind him. And maybe put the tent there for detailing or cleaning cars. So I have no problem if I stand up there for two more months. If you all have no problem with that, with the clear understanding that he and I agreed upon, tell me if I'm wrong, that the tent would not remain there any longer after October this year. He is three weeks past. His deadline to take the tent down. I know it was going to come in front of the board. So I have no problem with it staying up there if you all have a problem. But the setback is a massive deal of it. To keep that in mind of what's going to be happening in the years to come. I'm going to work very hard with the mayor and the council to try to clean up New Circle Road. It gets setbacks. We don't hurt anybody's business. I've been blessed with the wonderful business, Antique of Kentucky, Turner Development, and the Lansdowne Club. And I just feel like this would hinder people's future. So, you know, as far as business is concerned. So I ask that you all take. I did. I have given pictures. I have given pictures. I've shared with you all of how this, and I thank you all for a copy of it. Mr. Turner, would you, Jason, would you have him give that to Mr. Salis so he can put it up on the screen? Yes, sir. Can I speak? No. Thank you. This is Trailblazers. This is the 10th. the safe light next door to the property that I still own. It is in our family estate. And Phil Blazer, which directed this tent, it says it cannot take up permits. It cannot take any additional parking. It must be approved by the farm marshal. It's my understanding that they have got a permit by the farm marshal. I think it's a non-framable tent. So that's the one picture right there that shows the property next door. And if you do pull out there, you can pull out far enough that you can, you know, it doesn't block traffic because all the traffic is ongoing there. So if Barry wants to keep this tent there, if you all agree with it until October, I have no problem. As long as that tent does not go up, per our agreement, in the front of this building. When his building sat back, whether it was 20 or 30 feet, he agreed that he would never put it up in the front to be anything unsoughtly for New Circle Road. Okay. Mr. Turner, thank you. I'd like to ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Mr. Turner. Mr. Glover. Did I understand you to say that you all sold him the tent? Yes, sir. My son-in-law. My name is Jason Widmer. Several months ago, back in, I believe it was April, Barry and I agreed to sell him the tent. Didn't really know who he was, but sold the tent. And when this came up, Mr. Turner just asked me, he said, you know, we own that property, or not he owns the property, the Safe Flight. And he said, didn't you have to take that tent down? And he was aware that I sold it to Barry. And I said, yeah, I had to take it down. So I showed him the letter. And he goes, okay, well, I agree with that. And he said, did you oppose taking the tent down? And I said, no, you know, honestly, because in the wintertime when we use that tent, and I utilize that tent a lot at my business on Winchester Road, but in the wintertime we put sides up around it, and the sides just, it's really unsightly. Like it's one thing to rent a tent from a tent company, pop it up for 30 days, but it's hard to keep that thing clean when it stays up all year round. And so I knew exactly what Mr. Turner was talking about, that if I was a tenant next door and you have all these sides up, that tent can get tattered and torn, and it just doesn't look good. And I understand his point. As far as them detailing cars and stuff, I mean, it doesn't matter. I mean, you know, we do that as well, but that's not really an issue to me. That would be like me opening up a specialty shop and trying to compete with them as far as selling rims and truck add-ons. It's not really relevant. but I do get his point on what he's saying as far as having it sitting because I don't know how city council works, but I do know how people think. And my thought as a car wash owner would be like, okay, well, if they got that approved, then I should get my place approved. And that's just, I think you're opening up a can of worms here that you could get several people just wanting to put up tents permanently because you can utilize them and they're cheap. They don't cost a lot to put on your property and you can utilize them. But after a while, they get like an eyesore. And I was thinking, you put up these feather flags or whatever those windmaster flags are that you cannot put up in Fayette County anymore. Why did we take those down? Because they're starting to get to be an eyesore. This tent's just that times 100. It's just bigger than those feather flags. So, yes, I sold the tent. I'm here to support him as far as saying I agree it does look unsightly after a while. After that, that's kind of where I left it. Thank you, Mr. Widmer. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Widmer or Mr. Turner? I'd like to ask you gentlemen to sit down for just a second, and I'd like to bring Mr. Sanders up to see if he has any response to Mr. Turner. Yes, thank you for hearing me. We erected the tent, and I originally had contacted Jason about the purchase of it, and he asked me if I was Barry Sanders, the owner of Trailblazers. Trailblazers, so before we actually went and viewed the tent, he did know who I was. He did ask me what my intentions were using the tent, that we were going to use it for sales and for doing various outside window tinning, and we did not mention anything about automobile car washing. Clear up another issue. We don't wash cars underneath the tent. We detail cars. The washing actually takes place back away from the tent. So the tent is irrelevant to the fact that we wash cars. What we do underneath there is vacuum out automobiles, use a carpet extractor that contains the water to clean the carpets with. We detail the cars with waxes and chemicals that stay on rags, and we polish cars with buffers. That's pretty much what we do out front. Occasionally we do 10 window or two out front. We've put product out there for occasional sale. We do not park the cars outside the parking lot parameter. There's an asphalt area that we park our cars on in general. There are occasional times that we're, like many merchants up and down New Circle Road, we'll utilize some grass area in front where we will demo a particular car that we have a manufacturer bringing in or a customer that might want to bring their car out that we've just done a lot of work to and exhibited out there. You know, we would like to keep the tent and use the tent on a regular basis within the boards and the zoning laws. You know, we're asking for that extra space back because if we moved it any further back, it actually sides itself back past the hedges. And there's hedges here behind the tent, if you notice, between the two buildings. And you can't see very much of the tent coming from the other direction, from that parking lot. Coming this way, you'll lose no more visibility of SafeLite auto glass than you do if there were no tent there, because the hedges are way higher than anybody driving in an automobile, even in a semi-truck. In addition to that, before we put the tent up, the very day the tent was erected, there were a pallet racking system that was outside that had camper tops, hard fiberglass shells that are usually put on the back of a pickup truck, and we displayed those out there. And they had been out there for at least 15 to 18 years. and no one ever complained about them or asked us to take them down. This area actually takes up less space than what the tent takes up today. We don't have sides on them. As you can tell, the tent is clean. If for some reason the tent got wore out and eyesore, we've been there since 1982. We operate approximately an 18,000 square foot retail showroom and garage and installation facility. The retail store has been part of this community on New Circle Road, my gosh, almost 30 years, quite a long time. And that's it. I've agreed with Mr. Turner that we would take it down. I don't want to cause any hardship to him. We have known each other for many years. I'm not going to get into what I think might be personal issues or competitive issues with the matter. We'd like to stay good friends with him. I think the board has to make this decision not upon anything other than the facts and your decision. So I think the rest of it is completely up to you. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Sanders? Okay. Thank you. You can step down. Just one thing to add, we're not going to be putting any sides up on that tent or detailing any cars in there in the wintertime. There's no sides going up on the tent. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for staff. As I understand what I'm reading in the report, the original permit for the 60 days doesn't go through us. It's just from somebody else. Yes, the staff is enabled by the zoning ordinance to approve temporary structures for up to 60 days. And the staff did issue a zoning compliance permit and a certificate of occupancy for the tent. That was issued, the dates on that, it was issued starting on May 28, 2013, and would go for 60 days on that. What if they took the tent down and then applied next week for another 60 days? I mean, how does that fit together? I believe I can answer that. Yeah. The total number of days are within a calendar year. So 60 days per year. Yes, exactly. Anything over 60 days per year has to go through the board. 61 to 180. And our jurisdiction ends at 180 days. Is that the way I'm understanding? That also is within a calendar year. Within a year. All right. Make sure I know our parameters, yeah. The reason for the 180 days relates to the requirements of the Kentucky Building Code, which limit the erection of a temporary structure to only that period of time. We had a couple of situations around town where temporary structures went up, stayed almost six months, came down for a very short period of time, and then were re-erected. The current text of the zoning was approved in this fashion to prohibit that in the future. Ms. Moore. So can I just clarify? There are two separate issues, correct? There's one issue that they are entitled to the tent for 60 days. They got the permit, so they're entitled to it. So one may need the permit for up to 180 days. After that, it's not allowed for a full year. Okay. Then the second issue is the location, and that is the setback. So even if we approved the length of time, we still separately have to approve the setback. And then my understanding is the neighbors are objecting to the tent and the location, the length of time the tent is up there and the location, or just the tent? It's not the objection to the length of time. is if they put it up for 60 days like they say you can have it up there, then that's not the issue. The issue is to have it unlimited time and to have the setback. That change from 20-foot setback to zero feet from the building line. That's what the... This is more, if you'll notice, of this picture, which I just... If you have the picture there, this tent sets out past your building. You've got a sign ordinance here where a sign's got to be back so far. If you'll look at where I shoot trailblazers and the X mark where the tent's at, where McDonald's next to that, the tent sits way out there in front of the sign. Plus, on the other picture, if you notice, his drainage, his water comes off of his blacktop over into the, that's a street retention. That's a street drainage right there. That's where the water and all the camps go. And I'll just clarify something just because I feel like my integrity has been challenged here a little bit, but when Mr. Turner was mentioning about water drain off, the runoff, okay, I understand that under the tent you wax cars and you buff cars. I understand that. But you never wax a dirty car and you don't buff a dirty car. They're washing the cars, and Mr. Turner's, The issue is, where's that water going? And I know sewer rates are going up. We're trying to clean up our sewers. Where's the water going? And in order to clean a car, the chemicals are not safe. They're dangerous to clean it properly. And that's what his concern was with the runoff. Not that it's coming from under the tent, but in order to get them cars clean, are they containing their water properly? That's one thing. And, Barry, I will correct you. I didn't know who you were when you called me. So don't question my integrity, please, in front of people when I say I didn't know who you were. When I met you to sell you the hand. Aye, Mr. Widmer, we need to keep this to the matter at hand, please. And the issue of washing cars is not before us. That's not what we're being asked to decide. So we want to keep it, I think, within the bounds of the application. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Does anybody have any other questions? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Ms. Moore, Mr. Greggs? You know, before we—can I ask, I guess, the applicants another question or two? Sure. Mr. Sanders, come up, please. I want to apologize. I did not expect to be here today. That's all right. This is a working group, so we don't stand on that kind of ceremony. I'm kind of curious about why do you need the tent? I mean, is it to keep rain off cars that have been freshly detailed? That would be one reason. But the other reason, one, is you're not supposed to detail, apply waxes in a direct sunlight environment. So the tint is used to prevent that. In addition to that, it also allows the employee not to experience as hot a condition from the sun. Well, and you're in the business of, I mean, detailing cars is part of your permanent business, right? It is. But you know that even if we were to grant your application, you'd only get permission for putting up a tent for a total of half a year. Which is the summer season primarily. Oh, I see. We would not be, I mean, it's not an environment, a heated environment, that we would want to expose employees to out there during December, November, January, February, part of November. So we wouldn't be conducting that. And, again, we don't wash cars out there. We wash cars back toward the back. I understand. I understand. Thank you. I have a question. Is there any possibility of, you know, somewhere else on this property putting, like, a carport or, you know, a less, you know, in a different part of the property? Well, there is always another piece of property that we can move the tent to. The reason we chose that location is we have two front New Circle Road sections. If we had moved it over to the New Circle Road Family Circle intersection, it definitely would have been an issue of visibility. I mean, people moving in and moving out. There is no large hedges there already that have naturally grown. It would have been an eyesore. Regardless of the condition of the tent, it would have just been out of place. It was my election that there was this large, the camper tops are approximately about 8 to 10 feet wide, and they set back away from the shrubbery a little bit more. And so by taking that down, we weren't going to do any more harm than what we had been doing for the last 15 or 18 years. And that the hedges were already a large obstruction, so we weren't going to be obstructing any more. And we didn't put it into the grass. We kept it back. And there's a pretty large area. So in order to pull out onto New Circle Road, you have to come considerably almost down to the highway itself. You can't try and make a decision to turn because that's about 20 feet, 18 feet back. It would be a rolling lead for a turn. But if we pushed it back further, at that point it goes back so close to where the cars drive around. There's a gated area through there and another gated area on the other side, and cars drive around through there to get serviced. It would prevent people from being able to get in there. It would also cause a problem if someone was hurt and his emergency vehicle had to get back through there. It would restrict that traffic area. If we put it back toward the far side of the building, there's actually a driveway through there, and so we can't put it back against that bar fence because that blocks the driveway on the other area. If we move it out onto Family Circle Road, then between the curb and what the sidewalk is, and then a small line of hedges, then at that point we're still outside that variance requirement. And it would put it into the middle of the driveway. Can't put it up against the building. The building has too much of a very nice facade and front space and awning and everything on it. If we put it back in the back, we could do the work back there, but then obviously it does attract some attention to the fact that that's what we do. People see the sign. They see people working underneath it. Just the fact that people working underneath it gives us the type of exposure that lets people know that, oh, we can stop there and get our automobile detailed out. The majority of the cars that we do work on are cars that we already have customers with and that are usually too large to go through a large tunnel-type car wash. However, we do normal cars, too, and we do customers that have never bought a thing off of us. So moving it, we really don't have another place that we can move it to. If we move it into the back, then we have another obstruction. This is a neat little tight corner that doesn't cause any kind of visibility to get in and out of. It's minimal difference on what was there before and the current hedges that were there. And again, I said there was absolutely nobody that had an issue with us having those pallet racks. And it was actually, let's see, I think about 10 feet longer than what the tent actually was. Not quite as wide, though. You do window tinting inside your building. Your building is huge, right, with cars coming in and out of it to have work done. Yes. So you could do this detailing inside your building if you've dedicated a bay to it. And we will in the wintertime. In the summertime, we're very busy and have a lot more work going on inside. I think your biggest argument is that when it's there in the front yard, it draws attention and your customer base swells. The opponents indicated that you'd be willing to not ever put this up again if you could have it in place until October. Is that correct? Mr. Turner was pretty ammin' about it not being there. It's not my preference. You know, I think that as a merchant on New Circle Road, we have an obligation to make sure that it looks good, it's presentable. You know, we're not, we use biodegradable chemicals to do that. But so you would not agree if you had a couple months to never put it back up? We would. I mean, if that's what the board thinks is the right answer, I mean, I'd like to please everybody. It's a little difficult to do when somebody doesn't, you know, opposes what we're doing. But I think the board should make that decision not based upon my personal opinion or his personal opinion, but based upon what you all think. Thank you. Thank you. I then have a question of staff. If we were to deny this application, it sounds like a seasonal thing. If we're to deny the application and give him until, like, the end of October to take it down, which would not please everybody. We're not in the business of pleasing everybody, but it would be not the most unacceptable thing. What would their restrictions be next year? The 60-day limit has expired. So if the Board were to deny this application, Mr. Marks may speak to this, but I think it would have to come down very soon. If the Board were to approve it, they might condition it that it not be re-erected after this year or set some limits on its re-erection next year. I'm not sure I answered all of your questions there, Mr. Clover. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I asked all the questions that come to mind, but I don't want to prolong this anymore. I'm trying to accommodate everybody. I'm not sure if the Board were to deny this request that it could remain up on the property any longer. Okay. This year. If the application were withdrawn, then what? That would be the same. They could make an application next year to re-erect the tent somewhere on the site. That wouldn't solve the problem either, would it? But they could have the 60 days next year. Correct. But they could only have 60 days at this location if they got a variance for this location. Oh, the 60 days. That's right. Without the Board's approval of a conditional use permit, the 60-day limit would apply. But can they get it at this location for 60 days? Not this year. Go ahead. This year, the 60 days within the calendar year are expired. Next year, if the applicants were to come in and request a temporary permit for a temporary structure for the next calendar year, the staff would be authorized to do it for 60 days. I believe that based off of the discussion today that there would be, I'm not sure the staff would be likely to approve it in the same location that it is today based off of whatever action that the board makes today. There are two questions in front of you. The length of time for the tent, which is the conditional use, and the variances would be the location of the tent. I think what Kathy was asking is if the application made to staff for the 60 days included the area. The location was noted on that, and the staff did allow it in this location. It did not have any sides to the tent, and it didn't technically take up any parking spaces. It had two parking spaces underneath the tent, and it utilized two parking spaces to go there. The staff did grant it at that location, pending their application to the board, to make a determination on whether it would be allowed to remain in that location or not. If the board does not approve it this year and they were to request it next year, I'm sure that we would not approve it in the same location again. If we were to condition this, if we approve it and condition it that a tent can't be erected at all at this location, what's the follow-up? I mean, are you, the staff, you're giving this 60-day permit? I mean, what's the trail to make sure that this, in fact, doesn't, you know, that the tent doesn't get back up? Can you repeat the question? I'm just asking, you know, if we condition, if we approve this and say that the tent gets taken down at the end of October and, you know, you said you would agree not to ever erect the tent again and we put a condition on this that you do not erect the tent, you know, what's to keep you from, you know, going bad? And I'm not saying you will, but, you know, what's the trail to keep this from not being erected if it's conditioned? Mr. Marks? Okay. I'd like to. At this location. Mr. Marks has got a comment I'd like to hear. It would be the standard process. If you conditioned, rather than say they can't ever put it up again after October, I'd suggest just having a conditional use warden so that it expires at the end of October. so November 1st if the tent was still up we would have to go through our standard process of issuing a notice of violation and give them a at that point there would not be much time I think the minimum time we give is one day to correct the violation with a notice of violation I have to say that I'm inclined to say no it's hard to say it's an eyesore after October but it's not an eyesore now then I don't see a special hardship. It seems that it could be done inside. I'm kind of intrigued by the fact that the applicant has asked permission and might get not only turned down for the permission, but he might also lose the privilege that he had before without asking for permission. I mean, if we say no, I'm understanding you to say that no means no forever, and if he'd not even applied for this permission, he could have gotten 60 days every year, and we'd never known about it and couldn't have done anything about it. Am I reading that right? Are we going to penalize him because he came before us? I think if the board were to deny the application, they would still have the ability through the allowable accessory uses in this zone to re-erect the tent for up to 60 days during the next calendar year. And that would be if you denied the variance and the conditional use permit. And that's because of the nature of the zone, is that right? That's right. The conditional use is only for a period of time of 61 to 180 days. Okay, so anybody can put up a tent in this zone for 60 days, and we'd never know about it and never hear from them, and nothing we could do about it. That's right. And as Mr. Emmons said, yes, the staff might approve that permit next year, but given your deliberations today, we probably would not approve it this close to the roadway, since the variance would have been denied. There would be findings to disallow it this close to the road. So that's an unfair penalty, you're saying? Yeah, that's kind of my thought, that why are we penalizing him among all the others who might erect a temporary 60-day tent in this zone because he's come and asked for permission? That seems a little harsh. I have a question, if I can. Sure, go ahead. When we're talking about site, are we talking about the location that it's currently in or the entire property line? Just where it is. Just where it is, because that's the application. I, for one, Mr. Sanders, I certainly understand Mr. Glover's concerns. But on the other hand, and we appreciate you coming here to this board, and the board will decide what to do about this, obviously. But I've got to think that, you know, I've been out to the property side, and I do. I think that it takes away from the area. I think that the variance, I don't think that this is something that I can support. And I think that if, from Mr. Solis' comments just now, you would be able, because of the zoning, to apply for 60 days next year and 60 days the year after and so forth. I don't see us penalizing Mr. Sanders because he's wanting to go. So he was given a permit for 60 days, and he's asking us to extend it to 180 days. And I, for one, can't support that. But I do think that you have the option. What your original intent to do was to have it up there for 60 days, and you still are going to have that provision year after year after year. But as far as I'm concerned, requesting the conditional permit to continue for 180 days or until the end of October or until November 1st in the variance is just something that I can't support. Mr. Stumbo, I will make a comment. You mentioned about hardship. Our business and the retail location, that location has had a 38% increase in revenue three months out of the last since April. And the lowest increase that we've had is the comments that we've had on the visibility of what we're doing with that type of product and services outside. So it has increased our business. I'm sure it has increased your business, Mr. Sanders, and that's not what I'm stating here. I think that there are other areas within your building or in back of the building. If you want to have a detailed operation there, which you do during the wintertime, obviously you have the property to do so. And quite frankly, where the tent is sitting, I believe it is an eyesore. And I've seen vehicles underneath it as well. And I do think it takes away from the adjoining properties and what we're trying to do around New Circle Road. And, again, you'll be able to resurrect this thing next summer for a couple months if that's what you want to do, and then move the operation on the inside for the rest of the year. And you're going to be able to continue to do that. So I don't see this as an unharsh penalty on Mr. Sanders. I'm glad you explained that because I wanted to clarify that before I voted. If our denial of this application doesn't put him in a worse condition than he would have been in had he not made the application, then I'm going to agree with Mr. Stumbo that I'm not in favor of the application either, because I think it's an eyesore. But as I understand it, they're permitted to erect an eyesore if it's no longer than 60 days. So if he doesn't lose that right by denying him this permit, then I'm going to go along with the denial as well. At least that's my feeling right now. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Does anybody have any other comments or questions? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we deny Trailblazer's request for a conditional use permit to construct a tent for auto detailing to be left for more than 60 days, and that we deny the variance to reduce the required setback from 20 feet to zero feet to allow the tent in the highway service business zone at 2015 Family Circle, Council District 5, based on legal's findings of fact that this will cause an alteration to the essential character of the immediate general vicinity where these uses have been limited. Number two, the variance does not arise from any special circumstances in the immediate facility. The variance is not the third reason. The variance is not required to avoid any special hardships to the applicant or deprive the applicant of use of the land. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. All in favor of denying the variance and the conditional use permit, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'm sorry, but you've been denied, sir. But, Mr. Sanders, we wish you the very best. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Does staff have any other? I believe that completes the agenda. Does staff have any other items? Mr. Chairman, the staff does have one staff item. We would like to introduce to you Ms. Tammy McMullen, who has been promoted to be the administrative specialist, and we expect her to be at many of your meetings in the future. We certainly want to introduce her to you and also let her know how happy we are that she'll be helping us at your meetings. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Ms. McMullen. We hope that this won't be a painful process for you. Thank you very much. Does the staff have anything else? Does any member of the board? With that, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.