I'll be able to show up a little bit later. Mr. Money, First Cash Financial Services, is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition? Opposition? Okay. Barbara Dale, is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Barbara Dale, item 2013-74? No opposition? All right. Well, obviously, we'll hear the cases first that have no opposition. I'd like to ask Wanda Bertram if she would please come up. That's the first case, item V-2013-72. Would you state your name for the record, please? Wanda Bertram. Ms. Bertram, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, I do. Thank you. I'd like to ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions of Ms. Bertram. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve V-2013-72, Wanda R. Bertram's appeal for a variance to reduce the required setback along Ty Court from 24 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a rear yard deck in a two-family residential zone at 735 West High Street as recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Thank you, Ms. White. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Smith, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion has been approved. Good luck. Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. DePaul Crestig, item B, 2013-75. State your name for the record. Paul Crestig. Thank you, Mr. Crestig. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read those conditions? I have. And you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. Very good. Any member of the Board of Adjustment have any questions for Mr. Krustig? Hearing none, the Board of Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that V. 2013-75, Paul Krustig's appeal for variance to reduce the required setback from Thai court from 24 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a rear yard deck in a two-family residential zone at 801 West High Street, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Morris. Is there a second? Second. Second. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Crested. Good luck with your project. I'm going to try to call again. Tali Diaz is the applicant here. And we haven't heard anything from him at all. Mr. Salik, can somebody call him? No, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rackers is attempting to do so right now. Okay. Well, we'll move on down to the next item, item C, 2013. Mr. Money, First Cash Financial Services, would the applicant please come forward? Hey, Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Mr. Money, First Cash Financial Services. And Heath Wilson of EMJ Corporation, the contractor, is with me today as well. And we do agree with the staff conditions of approval. Very good, Mr. Murphy. There are three staff conditions that you agree to abide by. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions for Mr. Murphy. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2013-73, Mr. Money's First Cash Financial Services, Inc.'s appeal for a conditional use to expand an existing pawn shop in a highway service business at 1300 Winchester Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, we were able to make contact with Mr. Diaz. He is unable to attend today's meeting due to a work conflict and indicated he'd be interested in a postponement to your December meeting. Your meeting is on December the 13th. So he can make the December 13 meeting? Maybe. Maybe. He said he's had too many days off this month and they wouldn't let him off today, so he's going to plan on December 13th. Is there a motion to postpone item V201377, Mr. Diaz, to our December meeting? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Second by Ms. Meyer. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We'll move that to December 13th. Thank you, Barbara, for doing that. I'd like to call Barbara Dale, item C-2013-74. And state your name for the record, please. Barbara Dale. Thank you, Ms. Dale. Ms. Dale, staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? No. We have several letters. Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman, a citizen came to the office about 11 o'clock this morning and distributed most of this information to the staff. There are about three other letters that we received independently prior to this morning about this application. Very good. One of them includes some color photographs of the subject property. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Ms. Dale, we'll need a couple minutes to take a look at these. All right. Should I stand here or go? Thank you. Wow. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sully, I think you said there were three letters that were not part of this package. Is that in here, the separate letters? I thought that they were part of the information distributed to you. I'll check the files and see if we have them in there. Yes, that was one of them. I think that was the other one. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Ms. Silley, we have them. Thank you. Mr. Glover, you need a couple more minutes? Are you ready? Okay. Ms. Dale, would you come back to the podium, please? Ms. Dale, as I mentioned before, the staff had recommended approval subject to the following seven conditions, and do you agree to abide by those? Yes. I think that we received a bunch of documentation here from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services as well as a lot of your neighbors. And so I'd like to ask the board if they've got any questions for Ms. Dale. Ms. Glover. I've got some questions for the staff. What are we looking at here from Health and Human Services? and where is the human services i mean i'm not sure this question is directed toward the staff let me ask the staff first before we before we ask you if you don't mind yes uh does the staff did the staff have all this information no sir as i mentioned it arrived in the office about 11 this morning okay have you had a chance to look it over just during this time that the board members have as well. I note on the first page of both of the thick reports from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, their Lexington office, it appears, these appear to be for Barbara's Loving Learning Center at 3323 Partner Place in Lexington. At first, we weren't sure if this involved the subject property or another location. It does appear These are for another location, as best we can tell. There is currently family child care ongoing on the subject property, but for six or fewer children. And so this application, of course, is to increase that number. Ms. Salih, let me ask you this. We've all taken a look at these. This is a lot of information to go through, and obviously the staff has not had an opportunity to look at it either. I'm kind of leaning toward possibly postponing this until the next meeting to give the staff an opportunity to evaluate this material and give us an opportunity to evaluate it as well. I don't think anyone here, I'm looking at nodding heads, I think it's a consensus that we'd like to postpone this thing so we can look over this documentation. Would that be acceptable? Can I say something? Yes. Yes. Yes, I have a daughter that's living in my house that has five children, and those five children are there. Plus, also, we just got from our youngest son, our youngest daughter, we got three children in our custody this month. There is not a daycare in my home right now. I closed Barber's Love and Learning Center October 31st, and these are from the family services that you see. These are where the state representative comes to your daycare and they find things to, they look over your daycare to see if there's things that need to be improved. And there has been a few things on here that are in compliance, but there is a few things. And I have the stated letter saying that they have been approved and they have been corrected. and so those are not with these, but I would like to see if I could bring those back and you will also look at those too. Ms. Dill, I think that would be fine. I think that it's the pleasure of the board to postpone this to our December meeting, unless anyone has any opposition to that, because I would like to be able to study these materials as well as give the staff an opportunity to look at them, and you're welcome to, you know, you will have your day to explain. and refute anything that comes forth if that happens to be the case. So with that said, I'd like to cheerily entertain a motion and postpone this. Can I just ask one question? Yes, Ms. Moore. Technically, should it be a continuance or a postponement? I'm not sure that it matters. We'll still have the same record for you at the next meeting. Had we had a lengthy discussion, I think the staff's preference would have been for a continuance. Sounds like it should be a continuance, Ms. Moore, since we've already brought the case up. Is there a motion to continue this to our December meeting? So moved. Ms. Moore moves. Ms. White seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We'll see you in December. Thank you very much, Ms. Taylor. What day would that be? December 13th, Ms. Salee. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I asked one question real quick. Do you need to come to the mic and state your name for the record? Jeff Dale, her husband. The sign out front, can we take it down now since this has been postponed, or will there be another sign saying that we'll be back? Excuse me. Can we hear the applicant first? Yes. The sign out front, may we take it down now, or do we need to take it and there will be a new sign posted that this has been postponed until the 13th of next month? Mr. Saleh? If you can certainly remove the sign, the staff will put a new sign up in front of the property. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think our last case is the Oaks Condominium Association. Would the applicant please come forward? State your name for the record, please, sir. Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering, representing the Oaks Condominium Association. Mr. Holmes, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. You agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Very good. Mr. Salee, I know that there's some opposition to this case. Would the staff like to report anything before I'm going to bring the opposition up first? Certainly. We'll be glad to present our report. Okay. Thank you. We have a few photos to put on the overhead for you. This is a variance to allow the height, the maximum height of a fence, to exceed the current zoning restriction of a four-foot height, to allow a seven-foot-high fence in front of the main entryway into the Oaks condominium property. This development is on Redding Road. It is directly across the street from the Kirk-Levington Park, and this is a development that's been in existence for a number of decades. This appears to be a fairly substantial reworking of the front entryway, and we'll show you a site plan in just a moment. The condominiums total almost 250 in this complex, and there is a single gated entry, and they are proposing a redevelopment of that entryway to do away with the guardhouse and allow a more automated entry system into the condominium development, and that is what's prompting the variance. There currently exists a six-foot fence around the property along the frontage of Redding Road on their side of the sidewalk, and they are proposing to extend that fencing back into the property away from the street. and there's about a 20-foot portion of that fence that requires this requested variance. The remainder of the fencing that's proposed as part of the project is permitted at the six-foot height desired. The fence has masonry posts that are about seven feet in height, and it's the staff's understanding if they wish to continue that design around the new area. Can we show the photos, please? Okay. This is a view of the entryway. This is looking to the north. Redding Road is clearly visible where the red vehicle is there. And this is the existing guardhouse on the property, this location. And the next photo is just a little closer blowup of that area, which you can see a little bit if we zoom out just a hair. The pillars that are about seven feet in height and linking them here on the right especially, You can see the woven wire fence that is, pardon me, it's not woven wire. It's much more substantial than that fence that is there between those columns. The area circled in red on one side of the entryway is the 20-foot area that requires the variance. The existing fence, of course, is nonconforming since the zoning ordinance changed about two years ago to permit only a maximum height four-foot fence in the area. This fence has been there for many, many years. So it is that area in particular where the dimensional variances require. Looking at the site plan, this is a view of the same area. The yellow fencing exists along their frontage. They're asking to build new fencing, eliminating the guardhouse, and go to the automated system at that entryway and are attempting to erect the fence in pink and in blue. and the pink fencing is limited to a four-foot height under the ordinance. If you see those two wall planes that have been added to the site plan, that is the area behind which the fence is allowed to be the six-foot height that's being requested. So the one on the western side is in front of the wall plane and subject to the four-foot restriction in the ordinance. there is a development plan for this development and this because it involves a gate will be required to be reviewed by the planning commission regardless of the variance to make these types of changes and at that time the division of fire would ordinarily have an opportunity to review the system and make sure that it complied with their access standards in the case of an emergency run to the site. The staff has recommended approval of this variance for the reasons that are listed in our staff report on the agenda. Basically we found that it would not alter the character of the vicinity or cause a nuisance to the public, that it would be compatible with the existing development and the variance is very minor in nature. Only a small portion of the fence is required to have a variance to maintain a consistent height with the existing. We did believe that strict adherence to the ordinance would constitute a hardship to the appellant having the different size fences in this particular area. And then finally, we found that the request is not a result of a willful violation of the zoning ordinance by the appellant. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Salee. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Salee? Mr. Holmes, I take it to you, and the opposition stepped out in the hallway and were not able to resolve your differences there? Unfortunately, no. Okay. We'd like to hear from the opposition. Would you please come forward? Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Terry McBrayer, and he's my best friend. And he's not paying me either for this, but it's rather ironic that this very time, 50 years ago, John F. Kennedy was killed. He was announcing his death 50 years ago. He stood for civil rights and individual rights. That's what he stood for. And we're here today to talk about individual rights. What has taken place with the Oaks is that Joe B. lives right there. there's no fence in front of his condominium at the moment plus two other people who he speaks for today they're too old to get here today and so the oak some many months ago voted to have this change they're going from full-time guards 24-hour seven days a week guards they're going to remove the guard shack and go to a gated community. And they asked for another entrance on down the road, down this way, but it was for service entrance. And that was refused by the city. So now they haven't revoted. So number one, I don't think they're appropriately here, but I'm not going to do an L.A. law deal today, but I don't think that they're appropriately here. They voted to do away with the guards and have the other entrance. Now they're going to run it all through here. So in front, directly in front of his condominium, is going to be erected a seven-foot high fence. nine steps from his tongue. So I don't know that you have it in your packet. So what will happen? There are 100 visitors that go in there a day. And so they pull in and they go to the squawk box, which is 27 feet from his bedroom window. And they ask permission to come in. Well, you might be there, you might not. It might be a lawn service pulling lawnmowers, and then it might be two of them. And they can't get to the squawk. Nobody's home. They can't answer and all this stuff. Then there might be three. Well, then you're backed up entirely on the road. They're removing all. He has three, four parking spaces directly in front of his condominium and his two neighbors, and they are removing that. So here's what happens. When you go see Coach Hall, when all the TV stations come in there, all the people that come in there, they have to pull in, they have to go to the squawk box. Coach Hall, this is WSAZ in Louisville. Okay, come on through. They pull through the squawk box. They pull through. The big gate swings open. They park down, obviously, below. But then, and I don't have drawings, but then what happens, they have to come back, and there's a walk path that they are creating to go back out, so they have to go and ask him again to release a gate, another gate. You've driven in, you've parked, you come back, you have to ask him again to release another button gate to come back out, to walk right past that blue thing, that blue line, and then for the gate to go into his and his neighbor's condo, he has to do it again. So they're creating a prison for those three people, seven-foot-high fence, directly in front of his condominium. And without question, it devalues his property and the property of those that are there. it adds less security, and I know that's not the issue. It's the height of the fence and that sort of thing. But it's pretty remarkable that even they've got a six-foot fence around it, and they want to put a seven-foot fence on this. The fence is not around the whole property. Right. Only in front. And he says that fence is not around the whole property. But there's some disarray out there with the association itself. But I simply wanted to say in the review by the staff, and they are very talented folks, and I've known Bill and all of them for a long time. I just make the point that this guy right here and his two neighbors, it says it will not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties. Wow. It will not affect public health, safety, or welfare, as will not be in sight such as that. it will not alter the character of the vicinity or cause a nuisance to the public. I just simply say these three people sitting there that have to go to three gates to get back to them, and there's a fence. If you want to walk your dog, you've got to look at the fence right there in the front yard. And so they're really depriving. I mean, he doesn't want to rock any big boat. He doesn't want to cause a lot of grief. But I think they need to go back to the drawing board. You're sitting there and you're listening to 100 visitors a day squawking and people talking right back, right outside your condominium. It will be filtered only by a seven-foot-high iron fence right directly in front of your house where you've lived for 20 years. 14. 14. And so I just, I want to let Joe say his piece, but it's, and the additional thing, moving vans, all of the things, there's 248 condos. They're moving in and out. So the truck comes in, the moving van. The big one, the 18-wheeler. Nobody home. Can't figure it out. You know, what do we do? Talking to a squawk box. You're a visitor. You're just talking to a squawk box. And there's a little turnaround. But as Andy said, that'd be a problem, getting them back out. So you just back out on the road. So I think it needs to go back to the drawing board. And it's just overwhelming for the three people that live there in those three condos as to what they're doing to their invasion of their property and individual rights. It's just too much. It's overwhelming. And I understand a four-foot fence wouldn't help because they don't have the security. But to Joe, it's an awfully big fence, and it doesn't pass the fairness test for them. I'm beginning to repeat myself. Thank you, Mr. Andrade. I wanted Coach Hall to just say a word if I could. I apologize, Coach. Coach, we know who you are, but if you would, state your name for your record. Joe V. Hall. Please. Yes, sir. Go right ahead. I apologize for taking your time, but this is very important to me. I've lived there 16 years. I bought the particular unit. I looked at several others. Our three units right there at the front have parking access. And we loved having a lifeguard on the gate. I talked to Mike Sweeney, who is the president of the Fraternal Order of Police. And I asked him, I said, Mike, he did not know of this situation. I said, which is more secure, a lifeguard or an automatic fence? He said, no question, a lifeguard. So I take question to the statement that this is going to improve security. This fence will have nothing to do with the overall security of this property. You stated that the, I heard you state that this fence went all the way around the property, seven-foot fence. Did you not? Yeah, you did. I don't recall. I did, but you did because I whispered to Ms. McGrair that it's only in the front of this property. The sides and the back are just farm wire fence. So it's not a security matter. because I asked the president, Dick Carlton, who had been the past president, if he had ever remembered a break-in or a problem within the Oaks, he said, I do not remember one. How long have you lived here, Dick? 17 years. Now, you think we need to upgrade our security? by putting a seven-foot fence in front of three people's property. When you've got wire fencing all the way around, the next condominium association on either side has a regular farm wire fence. You didn't know that, did you? I don't think you've been out there to see this problem. You state in this, where is that? Article 15.4b states that the maximum allowable height for a fence or wall in a residential zone shall be four feet when located between any public or private street right-of-way and the front plane of a building. That's less than it takes to get a first down from my property to that fence. Less than nine steps from my front door and my three neighbors. Front door. This is in violation. You're going to have to amend that ruling to allow that seven foot fence. the uh like mr mcbrayer said it does affect my and my two neighbors property in severe way if you if you had seen when they first showed me this picture of a seven foot wrought iron fence with another gate in front of my sidewalk and another gate in front of my neighbor's sidewalk and another gate on the sidewalk to the inside of the condominium association. I have to abide by whatever the condominium association votes. But I'm also a citizen of this city, and I've got rights. and you have protected those rights with your ordinance. Please don't change that when this adversely affects our property of me, my neighbor on the left, and my neighbor on the right. That's what those two sidewalks, those two little double parallel lines are coming down from that blue fence. It's not going to be blue. I wouldn't object to it if it was blue. But this takes away four of my parking places. Come up here, Joe. Joe is registered to speak. Richard Maloney, come up here. Where do you park? Excuse me, Coach. Coach. Coach, excuse me a second. Sir, would you step up to the mic and state your name for the record if you have something to say? Joe Gentry. Yes, sir. What would you like to say? I'm a regular visitor there. You want to step up to the mic so we can hear you? I'm a regular visitor there at the Joes, and it will be a big inconvenience to park and get through the gates to get in. Do we have groups over? Okay. Our house? Yeah, ballgame groups and parties. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Maloney, state your name for the record, please. My name is Richard Maloney. I'm here for another reason. I've been over there before. They have a clubhouse there. They have a lot of people that have parties there. And I've been there with a gate, with a security gate, where the cars start coming out on the street because of a party. And if it wasn't for the security gate, they let them in so they get the traffic flowing through that area. You've got to park across the street for a lot of kids to play in that area. the last thing you want to do is back up that traffic on that interstretching right there on Redding Road. And most of you all know how bad it is. And I'm afraid if you put that gate there, it's going to really be bad, especially when you have a party at the clubhouse, which I believe some of you all have been to the clubhouse. You know, there's a lot of weddings and events right there. So mine is safety. And Joe and I have talked about this, and I do park right there where he is, but the number one thing we need to worry about is safety. The last thing I want to do is back this traffic up, and I'm afraid you're going to back it up. Thank you, Mr. Maloney. It doesn't have anything to do with why I had articular fibrillation when I saw that fence diagram in front of my house. They have a diagram of it with beautiful trees and shrubbery and birds flying around, but it doesn't sell me on being put in prison in my own house. and everyone I've spoke to that voted for this fence to be erected said they would hate to be in my position. So it does affect my property, my convenience, and the convenience of my friends. I ask that this fence not be allowed over four feet in strict adherence, To the ruling that has already been in place, Article 15, 4B, strictly, no bigger than four feet. And that will not make it a secure community. But it's my right to appeal this ruling, this suggestion. Yes, sir. If they had a six-foot fence all the way around our property, it would add to the security to put one in front of my house. But since they don't have, it doesn't do a bit for our security. And I take objection to that. Thank you, Coach. Thank you all for listening to me. It's been very lengthy. I didn't like doing this. I make everyone condomit him mad at me. but I've got a right to stand up for myself and my two neighbors. Neighbor on my left is old. She moved there because of a lifeguard. The neighbor on my right owns the property. Sometimes he rents it out, but he objects to that fence because he knows what it's going to do to the value of his property. Thank you, Coach. I'd like to ask the members of the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions at all for Mr. McBrayer or Coach Hall. Mr. Glover. Coach, I would have thought that you would have had a preference for seven-footers. Yes, I do. I've had many of them, and they did me very well. Are you saying that a seven-foot fence at that location would be out of character for the rest of the planned entryway? No, it's not out of character what's existing on the road frontage. But we've never had fencing inside our property. And the fencing that is in place was there when the facility was built. So it's always been there. Now they're going back inside the condominium association with this fence. That is not in character with what's there. It's not in character what's down this side boundary, the back boundary on New Circle Road, and the boundary between us and the condominium association on the other side. If it was around the whole property, you'd be talking about consistent security. But this is not the case. Is your property located in the Condominium Association property? Yes. Are you a member of the association? Did you all talk about this proposal in a meeting? Yeah, I got up and walked out of the meeting. So were you in a minority in that meeting? Yes, I was a minority. Because this fence doesn't bother anyone else. But they all say, I see why you're upset. I wouldn't want that. But they're voting for what the condominium association has told them, that it's going to save money and it's going to be more secure without causing any inconvenience. Have any of you been involved in automatic gates? A security company came out, and the manager showed me the report that he said, you put up a gate, you'll also have a full-time person round the clock to handle the problems that result. Nobody told you that. You know that the character of the security at the gate is not the issue. No, I realize that this is only for the fence. And only for a small portion. But the fence being reduced to four feet is not going to be a case for increasing the security of the property. And I do not want a seven-foot fence with locked gates in front of my sidewalk to the street. Thank you, Coach. Thank you. Mr. Griggs, you have a question for traffic engineering, and then we're going to hear from you, Mr. Holmes. Mr. Chair, I was wondering about the problems with backing up into Redding Road, but since it's not really part of the decision that we're faced with, I'm not sure it's applicable. But if traffic engineering would like to talk about why they thought this was an acceptable situation, given the amount of traffic that might come in in a short period of time and the traffic on Redding Road, I'd be interested in hearing it. In the plan, they're providing a pull-off area, and they're actually providing more storage than is there now. But with a live guard, he could pass 30 cars through there and keep Reading Road clear. But with a visitor, that person will now go to the side, which means that the residents will bypass through. Very good. Coach, if you have something new to add, we'll hear. Coach, come on up to the podium. We have one gate now with a guard. When people pull up there, that guard, if they have time, fills out of this surpass. If the traffic backs up, which it often does, especially at the 5 o'clock rat race, they send the people through and they pull on up and park on the side and wait until the guard makes out a slip and takes it to them. If they're not a backup, she makes out the pass, gives it to them, and they go on through. But in a busy time, she can ask them to pull through. She opens a gate. They pull through, park on the side, either in my three spots in front of my unit or on down the road. And then they come back and get their permit to visit. But it's not a holdup when she is servicing these visitors. If it's not a holdup, it does take a little longer. For her to write that down, put their license number in her book, we also have security cameras that clock these people as they come in. Does that answer your question about the time lapse? Thank you, Coach. Thank you, guys. Can I have one? Sure, Mr. Graham. Real quickly, so for clarification purposes, the board never voted again. They voted one time, and that was to have two entrances, this one and the other one. The other one was used exclusively for service, for lawnmowers, for moving vans, and all like that. But when the city turned that down, that shifted everything to here, and the board did not re-vote on that. Now the board is obvious. There is some turmoil within the board. None of the boards running for reelection and they've got a new board coming up and all that sort of stuff. And as I stood out there the other day at Joe's, one of the board members stopped right there and came out and said, this is absurd, coach, what they're doing to you. And I'm on the board. So absurd. So my only point is that they did not vote again. And so they're dumping all this right there without another vote. And so there's some internal issues there as well. And thank you again. Thank you, Mr. McBrayer. Coach, I think we need to, I need, unless you've got something new, Coach, we have got some new. The backup on the Reading Road. I haven't addressed that. with the guard on duty, she has the ability to open that gate immediately and solve the problem of backup, which occurs. But she takes care of it in a matter of seconds. If you pull up to that call box and the people back up behind you, you may be tied up there for 15, 20 minutes. and I'm telling you, 5 o'clock, you know where Cheddar's Restaurant is? They'll be backed up to Cheddar's Restaurant. By the time that person calls who is going to let them in, gets out of the bathtub, drives off, finds their cell phone, and clicks it to let that person in. And you're going to have cases like that that come up all the time. Check with the guards. No one has talked to the guards. No one has talked to people that are near that gate and know what goes on. I'm right. I see everything. I see all of this. If you come out and monitor the situation, you'll see how absurd this is. The seven-foot fence, I'm opposing. Do what you want to with the rest of it. Thank you, Coach. Mr. Holmes, you've been very patient. Come step to the mic. You've already stated your name for the record. You've heard Mr. McBrayer. You've heard Coach Hall, some of the questions, and we'd like to hear your report. Thank you. I'm going to be very brief and just address three issues. This exhibit that's on the overhead now is an excellent exhibit. the fence that is located in pink which is my understanding is the only fence that this variance applies to and the only question before this board is not the fence that is in front of mr. Hall's property mr. Hall's properties on the other side of the entrance and the fence in front of his property is in blue and it's permitted I believe it's permitted now but there's no variance requested for the fence that is in front of mr. Hall's unit that fence is about 27 feet proposed about 27 feet from his front door the allusion to nine steps is correct if each step is three feet those are big steps but it's about 27 feet it's not directly in front of the front door if anybody's gotten that impression the The stacking, next I would like to address the stacking area that Casey alluded to. We're providing approximately 40 or 50 feet more stacking room for traffic coming in off Redding Road. The gate location is moving more to the interior of the property by about 50 feet or so, and that should provide additional space for stacking and help alleviate some of the traffic congestion issues that Mr. Hall and Mr. McBrayer alluded to. I have not been there at rush hour, and I have not personally observed how much traffic stacks up at that entranceway at those times, so I can't make any statements that everything's going to be okay and that there's never going to be a backup. I'm not going to say that. the visitor procedure now that I'm familiar with is you drive in the front gate, you stop at the guardhouse, they fill out, they call whoever you're visiting and verify that they're expecting you. So the switch would be from having a guard call or having a call box call that person directly. But I think if that person is in the bathtub, you're still going to, now, you're still going to back up waiting for the guard to get in touch with that person that you're visiting. That's my understanding. That's how it's been. I've been there four times as a visitor to meet with our client, who's the board, and the first time I went, I was turned away and had to go park at Kirk Levington Park until they figured it out, what was needed. So my experience was they don't let you in unless they can contact the person that you're visiting. So that's really all I have unless the board has any questions for me. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Holmes? Mr. Glover? Mr. Holmes, let me ask you just for clarification for me, if you don't mind. The area that's designated on this exhibit that's in blue, is that already in place? No, sir. Okay. And what is proposed for that blue area? Is that a six-foot fence? It's about a six-foot fence. It matches the existing fence along the frontage of the property. that's the intent. And what is proposed for the area that's marked in pink? The same. The only difference is the area in pink is what requires a variance. And when you said the same, you mean the same six foot fence that's proposed for the blue? Yes, with the seven foot white masonry columns. The same as what's there in the picture. And the columns are already there? Not in the portion that's pink and blue, only in the portion that's in yellow. What they're trying to do is extend the fence and have it match what's existing. Well, I guess that was what I was getting to. The idea of the proposed plan is to make it consistent all around that entranceway. Is that correct? That is correct. And so you're going to have a fence that's consistently the same height all the way around that area that's shown on the exhibit as marked both in pink and in blue? That is correct. And what about the area that's marked in green? That's the existing fence. And how high is that fence? It's the same. It's six foot with the columns about seven feet. All right. And so as I understand your testimony, all three of those colors on the map are going to indicate a fence that's the same height for all that colored area that's on that exhibit. Is that right? That is correct. And you say that's going to be about six feet tall? Yeah, the wrought iron fencing is about six feet. In places like Gates, there's decorative portions of it that extend the height up to nearly seven feet, which is why the variance application says seven feet. Okay, I got you. Thank you. You're welcome. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Holmes? Can I just clarify? So the blue stuff is all permitted because it doesn't fall within the ordinance. It's only the pink stuff that we're dealing with, and the only question we have is whether it can go from four feet to seven feet. Maybe I should ask that to Mr. Sully. That's correct. Okay. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Holmes? You can step down, Mr. Holmes. Thank you. Coach, do you want to come back? Could we show the schematic drawing or whatever the drawing real quickly that you have not seen? And this was presented to us, I think, earlier. I thought you all had it, frankly, and you didn't. But as you can see, he's got to go through there, and it's not depicted because his condos is closer than that depicts, and the fence is going to be higher than that depicts. You have to go all the way, you know, the squawk box there. You have to go all the way through park, but come back, and then there's another gate coming back, and then another gate going into their condo. So there are three gates, and it shows that. It's not completely clear, but there are actually three gates you have to go to go to their place. And if this is, they won't put up this seven-foot high or six-foot high. they've told me seven foot, but whether it's six or seven, they won't erect this if you all turn it down. And so I would encourage you to turn it down and make them go back to the drawing board. Talk about a squawk box someplace else. We're talking about moving the entrance. We're talking about gating the entire area before they just put some facade out there of a fence right in front of his condo. I'm sorry, I think Coach has one more thing he promised. I'm anxious to get to that money. You stated... Coach, you need to address us. Go home. You're not going to... Don't address Mr. Holmes. Talk to us. The representative, the paid representative of the Condominium Association, stated that everybody that comes at gate has to have previous contact with the guard to get permission to enter. I have never called a guard and asked permission for somebody to enter. Mr. Maloney, would you come up? That is correct. When I pull up, they ask who I'm saying, they write the thing, and I go on in. They have never called in advance, or Coach Hall has never asked to tell them that I was coming. There is so much misconception on the people that testify. I don't blame the gentleman here for making a mistake because there is something in the back of the bylaws that you're supposed to do that, but it's never adhered to. I don't, well, I'm not supposed to address him, but that is not true. The only existing fence, that blue that they showed, can we go back to the blue? I don't know what this pink is. I don't understand. It's not there now, nor is any of the blue there now. Who was it to ask that question about the existing fence? I was just clarifying. So you live behind the blue, is that correct, not behind the pink? There is no fence where the blue is. There is no fence where the pink is. The only difference in that coloring that I can tell, it's going to be a different kind of gate. But it's going to be, it's new. All of that pink and blue is non-existing at the present. My understanding is that the condominium as of right can build the blue fence. The only thing before us right now is whether to grant a variance with respect to that pink portion. And the only thing before us is whether the pink portion can be four or six feet or seven feet, which they're requesting. That's my understanding of what is before us. What is before you is the blue also. The blue cannot be six feet. Excuse me, Coach. Mr. Salee, just for clarification. The issue above before us today is regarding the pink. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, that's my understanding according to that section of the ordinance. The section that restricts it to four feet is that between the front wall plane and the right-of-way, and that's the area. Just a point of clarification, we're not here to discuss the merits of the blue. We are here for the variance for the pink area. Is that correct? My understanding is the blue fence would have been permitted prior to the filing of this application. Thank you, sir. Does any member of the board have any other questions for either Mr. Holmes or Mr. McBray or Coach Hall? Now, the appeals for a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of a front yard fence from four feet to seven feet in a townhouse resident and a plain neighborhood resident at 395 Reading Road. That's what it says. And that's why I'm here. Yeah, because. That statement right there, a seven-foot fence, it doesn't say anything about a pink fence. But according to staff, Coach, we are here today regarding the pink area. That's what we're here for. Now, the Oaks Association Condominium appeals for adherence to increase the maximum allowable height of a front yard fence. That's my condominium. That's the blue area. Coach Hall, the blue fence is behind the wall plane. The blue fence is not a front yard fence. That's my front yard. Well, they designate the front yard based on Redding Road. Well, that's not a front yard fence. The pink either. Yes. See, the wall plane, they've got it designated on the top and the bottom of that drawing. The wall plane on the top comes in parallel to Redding Road. The wall plane on the bottom part of that drawing comes in at an angle and hits the original old established fence. They're not building a seven-foot fence in front of my unit. Well, it's a six-foot fence with seven-foot columns, but they're allowed to build up to eight feet by the ordinance because it's a side yard fence. It's not in the front yard. It's all about the definitions, Coach Hall. Wait a minute. I'm just trying to— I don't have a side yard. I'm between two condominiums that butt up to my apartment. That is my front yard. The misunderstanding is how the ordinance defines a front yard for the condominium, not your particular unit. I believe that's the case. Thank you. That's right. But it could be explained to you. I contest that. I apologize. It's my front yard. I understand your point of view, but that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. They are allowed by Wright to build the blue fence because it's a side yard. It's a front yard to all the units completely down that street. It has to do with the definition of a front yard as it's. All right. Let me read your statement here. Well, until recently, a 6-1 wall or fence was permitted in the front yard of all properties as long as it did not interfere with a sideline triangle. A text amendment to the zoning order was adopted for generally reduced the height of front yard fence for residents, offices, most business zoned from 6 to 4 feet. Although there were certain exceptions, unfortunately, the group residential project, such as a condominium development, is not included in those exceptions. Thank you, Coach. We've heard from the opposition. We've heard from the applicant. I think the board would like to move forward. What are the wishes of the board? Mr. Glover? I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. The chair will hear a motion. Mr. Glover? Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the application of V-2013-76, the Oaks Condominium appealed for a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of a front yard fence from 4 to 7 feet in a townhouse residential and planned neighborhood residential zone at 395 Redding Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions of the staff's recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Moore seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. You oppose? You oppose and Ms. Meyer? Yes. So the motion, the appeals for variance to increase the maximum is approved. Thank you very much. Good luck. Mr. McBrayer, Coach Hall, Mr. Holmes. I believe that concludes our agenda. I'd like to ask the members of the staff if they have anything that they'd like to add. We would just wish the board a very happy Thanksgiving. We're scanning our calendar real quick to see if there are any other training opportunities coming up. Yes. On Wednesday, December 4th at 4 p.m., there will be an APA, American Planning Association, lecture about fiscal impact analysis that's available for training credit for board members. Thank you, Mr. Salee. Does any member of the board have anything that they'd like to add? Well, this is just bookkeeping, but I bet the staff would like it if we'd turn these back in. That would save us a bit of copying. Thank you. Very good. With that said, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. No move. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. Thank you.