Thank you. I'm so excited. Check it. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. We will begin the January Board of Adjustment meeting. I'd like to ask everybody to please turn their cell phones off. and if you need to take a call, please do so out in the lobby. Anyone that is preparing to speak today, would you stand up and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You can sit. Before we begin our reading of the agenda, I know we have a couple sets of minutes that we need to approve. The board has had an opportunity to look at the November 22, 2013 meeting minutes. Are there any changes to the minutes? If not, we'll request a motion. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Smith. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We also have the minutes from December 13th. You all have had an opportunity to review those as well, and I'd like to ask if there's no changes, if someone would make a motion to accept. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Second? Second. Mr. Glover? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'm going to go ahead and read the agenda and ask if the applicants are present, and if there's no opposition, we're going to hear those first. And if there is opposition, which I don't think is the case today, we ask that you step in the hall and try to resolve those cases with staff that has recommended approval. I would like to ask staff if there is any withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, the staff has two items on the agenda that I'd like to draw your attention to today before the meeting starts. The first would be on page 3 of the agenda under item D, D1 for conditional uses. And the case would be CV 2013-62 K. Wesley Farley. The staff would like to point out that there is a typo on the agenda. This is a combination of a conditional use and a variance. And on the agenda, we only have the approval of the variance. The staff is also recommending approval of the conditional use. and that is correct in the staff report in your packet. We also have additional staff reports for this case at 573 to 575 Maryland Avenue available for the audience should anybody want a copy of that staff report. The second item on the agenda to draw your attention to would be on the last page of the agenda. that that would be page 6, who would be item E1, and that case number is A2013-80 for Steve Perry for a property at 301 to 343 Burley Avenue. At this point in time, the applicant has withdrawn that request. The withdrawal request came in after the legal ad had gone out, but before the agenda was complete. So the staff has noted their withdrawal. That does not require any action on part of the board today, just noting that that item has been withdrawn by the applicant. Very good. I do not know. There might be other postponement or withdrawal requests from the audience today. Are there any other withdrawals from the audience? Yes, sir. Would you please come up to the mic and state your name for the record, please? Stephen House. Just to withdraw my thing, to keep the building where it's at, I'm going to take it down. I've already talked to the people to have it removed, and they said there are probably about 30 days before they can start on it. And they'll take it away, take it out, put it back. So remove it, I guess. Very good. Very good, Mr. House. We've noticed that that is withdrawn, and we appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Takes no action from the board. I want to go ahead and read the agenda. First item is Stephen Leachman, item V2014-5. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Mr. Leachman? The second item is Dale Torek, V2014-6. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Is there any opposition to Mr. Torek? item three mr. Olstertag Eric Olstertag and I'm not even going to try the first name because I don't want to thank you very much is there any opposition to item 2014 7 to mr. Tabacoli and Mr. Ostertag, no opposition? Okay. Ching Chung Chang, item B, 2014-8. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Ching Chung Chang? Okay. Wesley Farley, CV-2013. Is the applicant here? Mr. Farley, is there any opposition to Mr. Farley's request? The next item is Sims Entertainment Group. Is the applicant here? Sims Entertainment. Is there any opposition to Sims Entertainment Group? There is opposition. We'd ask that you all, before the case is called, go out in the hallway and see if you might be able to resolve your differences. We'd appreciate that. The next item is the 2014 one, the Living Arts and Science Center. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Is there any opposition to the Living Arts and Science Center? There is opposition. I ask, too, that you all go out in the hallway and see if you can't resolve your differences, and then we will be calling you later on in the agenda. The next item is Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church. Church, is there any opposition to Maxwell Street Presbyterian? Very good. And the last item is an administrative review, which we will take up at the, I'm sorry, item. What page are we on? Oh, I'm sorry. Elizabeth Epperson. Is there any opposition to Ms. Epperson? No opposition? Thank you. It was Maxwell Street. I marked it down on the wrong thing. Yeah. Very good. Again, we're going to take those applications that have no opposition. I'd like to ask Mr. Leachman to please come forward. Before we begin, is Quest also here? We have an administrative appeal for Quest Community Church. Are they represented? Okay. Thank you very much. Stephen Leachman. Thank you, Mr. Leachman. Mr. Leachman, the staff has recommended approval subject to the six conditions. Have you read those conditions? I did. Do you agree to abide by them? I do. Very good. I'd like to ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Mr. Leachman. I have a question for staff. Yes, ma'am. in the staff report you make note of um the uh fact that there's a question about how wide this property is and that you haven't asked for a new property survey or deed so would you just clarify for the record um about this variance and your thought process the primary variance that's being requested in on this is the the northern property line where the house is being requested to be nine feet five inches from the property line and that's that line it actually is not in dispute and there's a 25 foot side yard requirement the the staff in working with mr. Leachman at the counter and looking at the copy of his deed and in what he was requesting if you if you measure his lot But as he did from fence line to fence line, he has 80 feet, which means that he would only need the northern side property variance. However, if you read his deed, he has 76 1⁄2 feet. And if you do the math for the size of his building, it's possible that he could be about six inches off. And the staff felt it was the better part of valor on this particular request to go ahead and recommend granting a 25 to 24 foot variance on the southern property line. Also, just in an overabundance of caution in case the deed is correct instead of the field measurements. There were other items that these deeds for Centerville date back to the 1800s, and there were other items in that deed that were questionable also. So it's close enough that there was not really a need to ask Mr. Leachman to do an actual new survey for the property. One would not be required with the side yard variances that he's requesting anyway. And so in the case of the southern property line, also another factor that went into the staff's decision is that Mr. Leachman owns the property to the south, too. So essentially it's granting a side yard variance against property that he owns. With all of those factors, the staff felt comfortable in going ahead and recommending approval of both variances, even though there might be some question by a few feet on the width of the lot. Thank you. Is there any other questions for the applicant or for the staff? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve B2014-5, Stephen Leachman's appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard on the north side of the property from 25 feet to 9.5 feet and a variance to reduce the required side yard on the south side of the property from 25 feet to 24 feet in order to rebuild residents in the agricultural zone at 1198 Centerville Lane as recommended by staff and subject to the six conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Do we have a second? All second. Mr. Griggs, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Leishman. Thank you. The second item, Dale Torek, would you please come forward and state your name for the record? Dale Torek. Mr. Tork, your appeals for variance to reduce the required side street yard from 20 to 5 feet in order to rebuild and expand an existing detached garage in our R3 Zone at 1105 North Broadway has actually been recommended for approval by staff subject to the two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. Very good. Any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Tork? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve V. 2014-6 Dale Torx's appeal for variance to reduce the required side street side yard from 20 feet to 5 feet in order to rebuild and expand an existing detached garage in the planned neighborhood residential zone at 1105 North Broadway, based on the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the two conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Chort. Thank you. The next item is Mr. Tabacoli and Mr. Ostertag. Item 2014, would the applicant come forward and state your name for the record, please? Charles Penn. Yes, sir. The staff has recommended approval subject to one condition for your variance to increase the maximum allowed parking from three to four spaces. Do you agree to abide by that condition? I think I'll get a program. If you think so, very good. Does any member of the Board of Adjustment have any questions for Mr. Penn? I was wondering, are you an architect or the builder for the project? You're the builder? Yeah. And what was your name again? Charles Penn. Thank you. Hearing no other opposition, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to be approved V2000-7. Zahra Tavor and Eric Ostertag's appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable parking from three to four spaces in the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two-family residential R2 zone at 511 West 3rd Street, based on the recommendation of approval by staff and subject to the one condition. Thank you, Ms. Myers. I meant to say another question, not opposition. There's no opposition to this. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, second. So all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Penn. The next item, I believe, is item 2014, Ching Chung Chang. Would you come forward and state your name for the record, please? Hi, I'm Kim Bragg. I'm his architect. He couldn't be here today. Nice to see you. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Does your client agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, we do. Very good. Do we have any questions for the applicant? How is it that he decided he needed to build a sixplex here? I mean, the quantity of variances is larger than we're used to. I've been on this board 10 years, and one or two are normal. Sometimes we have three. I can't remember a four. And six variances on a small property is very worrisome to me. The neighborhood used to be small single-family homes, and has been since turned into an R5, which is the high-rise apartments. So this one. The neighborhood used to be small, single-family homes and has since turned into an R5 for the high-rise apartments. And so it's gradually going through some changes. So this tight lot was actually two even smaller lots that he's combined to try to put an apartment building on. Well, that doesn't really answer my question. And maybe I didn't put a question clearly to you, but didn't he have options with a different size building or a different density to be able to meet the requirements of the zone? A single-family home is really the only thing that will fit there and meet the requirements, and it financially doesn't work. Well, what's on the property now? I think it says it's a duplex. It's got three bedrooms and three baths. I see three mailboxes on the front, so is that a duplex? No, it's a single-family home, isn't it? Is it a single-family home? Mr. Evans? To the staff's knowledge, it's classified as a single-family home. It's very small. I do not dispute the fact that there might be multiple mailboxes on it, or if the property has been used for rental. The staff is unaware of those facts. So he bought this property recently, within the last year. Yes. But it doesn't work with the building that's on it, and he can't put a building on it that does work for him financially without getting six variances. Correct. Well, that puts me in a funny position. So do you want to help us with this? If he put a fourplex on it, wouldn't then he meet the parking requirements and the height requirements, so we'd be down to four variances? He doesn't see that as being financially feasible. Well, I don't. He paid $130,000 for it, and he's got probably $1,000 a month coming in now. It's like a 7% return plus appreciation and depreciation. What kind of financial return does he think he should have? I don't know. Okay. Well, I can't vote for this, but it may pass. I just wondered if you had an explanation why we couldn't put something more that didn't overflow, basically, onto the properties around him that do meet the R5 zone. Well, the adjacent properties are three-story apartment buildings. And so turning this into a three-story apartment building is just going to be more in keeping with the newer part of that neighborhood. I have a question, I guess, for staff, I guess, more than anything. I mean, this is an unusual number of variances, and I understood from the staff report that it seemed like one proposed variance led to another. But I'm concerned as well about trying to shoehorn this in to a very small piece of property. I mean, I feel uncomfortable with it as well, but I'd like to be made to feel more comfortable if there's a comfortable explanation. One bit of information for the board that may or may not have come across well in the staff report is that I have actually met with Mr. Chang and seen about four different versions of development on this particular piece of property. and we have looked at it in multiple ways. In looking at this particular piece of property with the R5 zoning, the basic issue and the basic justification for all of the requested variances is that the R5 zone was really designed as a suburban high-rise apartment zone where you would have a very large piece of property with an apartment building in the middle that went straight up. one of the factors that went into the staff looking at this redevelopment project, when you look at the surrounding properties, there really is no opportunity for this property to be combined with any of the other adjacent properties. If I can show just a slightly expanded version of the area. The entire block that's bounded by a transcript, Press Avenue and Gazette Avenue, that whole area was originally done up in 20 and 25-foot lots. And you can see from the rooftops, over the years, people have combined typically six of those lots together to build over and over again the same three-story apartment building with the parking out front. The last three of the little shotgun lots, if we can go on the one that zooms back in on the subject property, the previous photo. my very first question to mr. Chang was have you talked about combining your lot with the the two smaller lots that are there to do the same type of development to to consolidate those those two properties are owned by the University of Kentucky and it's not it's not viable that this lot would be able to be combined with any of the other lots. So what we have is a small R5 zoned lot. Whenever we looked at what can you do on it, if you tried to build it, even try to rezone it to an R3 or an R4, a different zone, it would still require almost the same number of variances. As far as Mr. Griggs' point about the, if this were a fourplex instead of a sixplex, it would not require if it provided the same amount of parking it would not require a parking variance but from the looking at this from an infill and redevelopment standpoint all of each of these units are very small they're only 500 square feet per unit it's an efficiency style unit one parking space per unit does seem to be an appropriate parking generator for such a small efficiency type apartment and even though this is a small case every two every two units that don't go on this property do need to go somewhere else in the community being as close to the University of Kentucky it is as it is and being an infill and redevelopment project was very much on the minds of the Division of Planning when we evaluated this staff report and yes each Each of the variances are related to each other. If you had changed the design to cut down on the total number of variances, you would have had to ask for a greater variance on some of the others. It would have been more of a variance than what is being requested now. After looking at about four different development scenarios on this one, this development scenario appeared to be the one that had the greatest balance to achieve a development for this subject property. And that's the one that the applicant chose to bring forward to the board today. So you all have talked in detail with the applicant about the design and the need for variances. Yes, and in every way that I have looked at this particular piece of property, the only development that I can see that could fit on this property without the need for any variances and keep the existing R5 zoning would be to essentially keep what is there. It could be rebuilt, but keeping the small structure that's there seems to be the only option that does not require any variances whatsoever. very good any other questions for the applicant does that answer your question mr clever it does thank you very good does anybody else have any other questions for the applicant if not the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve V. 2014-8, Chinchung Chang's appeal for variances to reduce the minimum required parking from one and a half unit to one unit, one per unit, reduce the minimum open space from 20% to 14 space, reduce the minimum side yard from 10 feet to 5 feet to increase the maximum allowable height from a 4 to 1 height to yard ratio to a 6 to 1 ratio, 30 feet tall, to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 14 feet, and to partially reduce the required vehicular use area landscaping in order to construct an apartment building in the infill and redevelopment area in a high-rise apartment zone at 155 Transcript Avenue for the reasons recommended by staff, together with the verbal explanation, and subject to the three conditions recommended by staff. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Smith. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Mr. Griggs opposed. Your variances are granted. Thank you very much. Good luck. The next item is Mr. Farley, item 2013-62. State your name for the record, please. Okay, Wesley Farley. Thank you, Mr. Farley. Mr. Farley, the staff has recommended approval subject to the four conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, sir. You agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, I do. Very good. Ask the board if they have any questions for Mr. Farley. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve CV 2013-62 Wesley Farley's appeal for a conditional use permit to allow retail sales of antiques and home furnishings in the light industrial zone and a variance to reduce the required parking from five to three spaces at 573 and 575 Maryland Avenue based on the staff's recommendations for approval and subject to the four conditions. Are there additional conditions for the conditional use part of this? No, sir. The four conditions are for the entirety of the application. Then that's my full motion. And just for clarification and record keeping, it is for the reasons in the staff report where we recommend approval of both the conditional use and the parking variance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Image. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, second. So all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Farley. The next two items have got opposition, so we're going to move over to Maxwell Street Presbyterian. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the church requesting approval for our conditional use permit. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. The staff has recommended approval subject to the four conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? We do. You're up. Very good. Do I have any questions from the board? for the applicant. If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the appeal numbered C-2014-2 Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church for a conditional use permit to permit a coffee house as part of the existing church use in a high-density apartment zone at 319 Lexington Avenue for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions Proposed by staff. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do we have a second? Second. Ms. Meyer seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck, Mr. Nicholson. Thank you. The next applicant, Elizabeth Epperson, would you please come forward and state your name for the record? Elizabeth Epperson. Very good. Ms. Epperson, the staff has, excuse me, recommended approval. subject to the four conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, sir. And agreed to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Very good. I'll ask the board if they've got any questions for Ms. Epperson. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2014-3, Elizabeth Epperson's appeal, request to modify conditions from a previously approved conditional use permit, extending hours and operation of a jukebox during business hours in a neighborhood business B1 zone at 1418 Village Drive for the reasons recommended by staff for approval and subject to the four conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Griggs second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. I believe that that is the agenda until we get to our administrative reviews, but we've got to go back. We've got some opposition regarding, I think the first case is Sims Entertainment Group. Would the applicant come forward, please? They're still out in the hallway. They're still out in the hallway? The staff has received some communications. I could pass those out if we want to as they're coming in from the hallway. Okay. Thank you. to take a look at these. I was going to ask, I'm Al Grash, the attorney on behalf of Sims Entertainment. We're still speaking out there. I think we're making progress. Okay. To request that we be passed and perhaps put it to the free docket. Very good. We've got another case we can certainly take up. Very good. Good luck out there. I believe the next case that we've got is the Living Arts and Science Center. Would the applicant Please come forward. Are they still out there? Well, good. Nice to hear that the power of negotiation is still alive and well. I'll go. Well, we'll go ahead and move on to Quest Community Church. The applicant here, please. If the applicant would please come forward. State your name for the record, sir. Chairman Stumbo, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of Quest Community Church. Hi, Mr. Barrett. Nice to have you here. We've got staff passing out some things. And before you begin, we'd like to, this administrative appeal, I'd like to hear from either Mr. Emmons or Building Inspection. Possibly legal. I'd like to hear from staff regarding the... Their determination that a church entrance sign that is on a separate property constitutes an off-premise sign in light industrial and a professional office zone at 410 Sporting Court and 483 West Reynolds Road. Mr. Emmons, would you like to begin? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I need to say that I will be representing both the Division of Planning and the Division of Building Inspection in this. How this appeal has come about is that the applicants had requested a sign permit for this sign. the Division of Building Inspection denied the permit, and the Division of Planning agreed with the Division of Building Inspection's interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The applicants then appealed under Article 7-6E of our zoning ordinance that decision on the interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Building Inspection, Ms. Marinaro is not able to be here today due to a death in the family, But I did talk with building inspection today, and we agree on our interpretation, and they are fine with me representing both divisions for today. At issue, the applicants, as I mentioned, had requested to sign. It's Quest Community Church. Their address is at 410 Sporting Court. and they wanted to place a sign for the Quest Community Church at 483 West Reynolds Road. The applicants have detailed in their letter the reasons why they think that this should be allowed. The staff will explain our thought process on why. I just passed out to you, it was in their original letter, but you had black and white copies, So we made enough color copies of the proposed sign, or at least a general thing on the sign, and some pictures that they had submitted for that. So these are the same pictures that were emailed to you, I mean, that were in your packet, but they are much clearer today. to walk you through here the proposed sign for Quest Community Church is actually on the property owned by the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church along West Wellington Way the applicant submitted a final record plat that shows where the sign is to be located and exhibits for that the quest community church does have an access easement through the other church's property but the staff has opined that that is still an off-premise sign if i can work you through the staff exhibits which start with the email that has the blue and red on it this is officially the email where we said we agree with the division of building inspection that said no The staff also submitted the zoning ordinances that we feel back up our decision-making on this. To start with Article 17-3, which are the definitions in the sign ordinance, I've highlighted on the next page the definition of an advertising sign, and that's a sign which directs attention to a business, product, service, or activity generally conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than on the premises where the sign is located. The elsewhere is very important in this decision-making process because it's an off-site sign that they are proposing, and therefore the staff feels that that does meet the definition of an advertising sign. Oftentimes, advertising signs, you'll see them in the form of a billboard, And if you look at the maximum allowable signage, zoning ordinance essentially describes a billboard. But it's always been the staff and building inspections interpretation that if an advertising sign was allowed and you wanted something less than a billboard, it's still an advertising sign and you can always get a permit for something less than the maximum. The applicants, I also highlighted the definition of an identification sign because that's a sign which establishes the identity of a building or building complex by name or symbol or combines the name, street address, and management and has no direct advertising value. So really what this decision will come down today is the off-premise sign that they're requesting. Is it an advertising sign or is it an identification sign? To walk you through the zoning ordinance a little bit more, the property that they are proposing to place this sign on is zone P1 in the professional office zone. And we've included for the record what signage is allowed in the P1 zone and an advertising sign is not one of those permitted types of signs in a P1 zone. The first time that an advertising sign is allowed is in our B3, B4, I1, and I2 zones. And if you can turn to page 1713, you can see up at the top where the arrow is. In addition to the other signage in those zones, you can have an advertising sign structures permitted as follows. and that has those maximum allowable restrictions, which essentially defines a billboard. The staff further felt that the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to permit a sign type that's not allowed in the zone. So once the staff has made the determination that their off-premise sign that they're asking for is an advertising sign that essentially prohibits the Board of Adjustment from granting any type of variance to approve it. So what is before you today, once again, is the sign that they're asking for an advertising sign or an identification sign. Jimmy, is that a jurisdictional determination? That is an interpretation of the zoning ordinance and covered well within Article 7-6E. It's within the board's authority to determine the interpretation of the zoning ordinance. And that's actually the last part of our handout is where we did copy for the record Article 7-6E, which is the appeal process that the applicants have chosen to bring this application or this appeal, not an application, but bring this appeal before you today. In short, there is no disputing that the sign that they are asking for is on a separate piece of property. And the staff is worried also about the unintended consequences and that we don't have anything against the sign that they're asking for. We even tried to look at ways to help them get the signage that they're requesting. However, if you looked at this, if this were a car lot and they were wanting to put their identification sign on somebody else's property, there would be no question that's an advertising sign. That's an off-premise sign advertising a use on a different lot. And at its essence, that is what has been presented to the Division of Building Inspection in the form of the request for the sign permit that was denied. That essentially concludes... I don't want to interrupt you every time, but I understand that the property that the sign is going to go on is on an easement that the church does have. The church does have an access easement through the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church property. Yes. So does the ordinance get interpreted to the extent that an access easement is or is not a property interest? The staff has interpreted it that it's an off-site sign, even with the access easement. Once again, if we went down that path, it would be very easy for anyone to make private easement agreements with other property owners to be able to come back and get signs, off-premise signs. Jimmy, if this was determined by us to be an identification sign and not an advertising sign, would it be allowed to be there? I believe that the sign as proposed meets the setback and the size restrictions for an identification sign in the P1 zone. I do believe it does meet that. To be honest, I can't tell you exactly whether it does or doesn't. We didn't get into that because the threshold question, is it allowed or not? But I believe it would otherwise be compliant. Would it be an identification sign and not an advertising sign if they struck the word church from the sign? So it wouldn't say Quest Community Church, it would just say Quest Community. Or what if they only said Quest so that people that knew where they were going would find the right driveway to go in? I believe that that's still the primary purpose of the sign is to let people know that Quest Community Church is in the rear. If you read through our emails, some of the suggestions that we made were to actually consolidate the land for the access easement so that Quest Community Church owned that land, and then it would not be an off-premise sign if they just owned it fee simple. that would be creating a flag lot, which is something that typically our subdivision regulations do not promote and typically disallow. But considering that there is a physical, there's not just an access event, but there's also a physical roadway there that is used, that there could be some justification for going ahead and allowing the flag lot in this instance because of the nature of the access easement. In that case, if they owned the property, we would not be here today because I believe the sign permit would have been allowed to be issued as an identification sign. I think we also discussed that if the sign were further back into the property and not visible from the public right-of-way, then by our zoning ordinance, technically it would not be considered a sign. And you could have those additional identification signs further into the property. But, of course, I do understand from the church's perspective that they're trying to let people on the roundabout know how to get back to them. So I understand that that's an allowable something that could be done, but it's not necessarily a practical solution. But you didn't really answer my question about whether reducing the verbiage on the sign so that it wasn't even identified as a church. Would that stop it from being an advertising sign? I believe it's anything that would be telling the public, any sort of copy on that that would be telling the public that Quest Community Church is backed that way. I believe that would be a sign by our zoning ordinance. I think that would be an advertising sign by our ordinance. And are you concerned about setting precedent here? we we are concerned about setting precedent because it's not it's not quest community church it's not the sign that personally i think the sign or a similar sign would be lovely out there and and the staff definitely understands the applicant's desire to put it out there however we feel that this would be a a very bad precedent to set But if we disallow the sign, Jimmy, what remedies does the church have? Would it be a zoning issue, or would they have to move the sign back? Would that comply, or if so, how far back and all that stuff? As far as moving a sign back onto Ashland Avenue Baptist property, it would need to be far enough back so that it would not be visible from the road, from the street right away. The other remedies, the consolidation of the physical property to their property, and hence they own it, that would be one remedy that they could do. Another remedy would be to ask for a zoning ordinance text amendment to kind of clarify that under these circumstances that sign would be allowed. I don't know exactly how that would work out, but that's always an available option to everyone in Fayette County. Is site or off-site or on-site, are those described words, defined terms? No, but the term that the staff is going with is in the definition of the advertising sign, where it's a business product, service, or activity conducted elsewhere other than the premise in which the sign is located. Do you have questions? I guess it goes without saying that you've worked back and forth with the applicant and nobody has a solution. I don't know what their barriers would be to the consolidation. Maybe Ashland Avenue Baptist Church is not willing to sell. You know, the government can't force two property owners to trade property. And as far as the zoning ordinance text amendment, I don't know that we haven't had any serious discussions about that with the applicants or anyone in our office. I believe that they wanted to see how this process plays out first before they look at other options. Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Mr. Berry? Okay, thank you. With me today is Pastor Dave Griffin from Quest Community Church, and we have two representatives from the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church who will probably want to address the board as well. And we also have some members of the Quest Community Church with us as well. Let me pass out some handouts to kind of go through. Thank you. use the overhead as well and probably go back there so I can is this a pointer? I could just use that as well. And then And this is a graph of the Washington Science It's a little bit different than what's the minute What I And What I And okay okay i think you're all's conversation uh with jimmy was uh pretty germane to our argument Okay, that's an illustration of the proposed sign that we're for the Quest Community Church at the intersection of, well, what's the road there? Wellington Way. I keep wanting to call it Reynolds Road, but Wellington Way. and that's an existing entrance there that is cut in with the construction of Wellington Way that was intended for access to the development. Let me give you some other exhibits to put on the board. okay this is just an orientation of where we are this is the quest community church back here this is new circle road wellington way and the circle there at wellington way this is the ashland avenue baptist church And this is the sign location. There's an existing road cut there and a break in the median. And the driveway comes back here, turns here. Phase two of their parking lot is here. And, of course, you see the existing parking lot in the church. This is Sporting Court where they have their existing entrance that they use today. If you'll flip to the next exhibit, this is the development plan for Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. This is the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Wellington Way, the circle. Ashland Avenue Baptist Church entrance is right here. And they also have a proposed option to expand their parking to use the drive. This is the driveway. going back to this is the Quest Community Church property here and when this was developed that was used for sports fields and etc but it's now owned and developed by the Quest Community Church and the highlight here is the access drive and it is an access easement it's a 60-foot access easement through the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church to serve the Quest Community church property when and the the if you would flip to the next exhibit this is the development plan for the quest community church this is new circle road at the top sporting court the entrance this is their existing parking lot and this development plan shows the proposed parking lot as phase two and and the driveway coming in and tying in and goes down to Wellington Way. When this proposal was being submitted to the Planning Commission, part of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to make this connection. So that was a consideration at that time to use Wellington Way as an access point for the expansion of Quest Community Church. if you'll flip to the next exhibit. I've kind of gone back to the exhibit that was the development plan for the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. This is a detail on that development plan. This is Wellington Way, and this is the proposed access easement. And at that time, it was anticipated that there would be identification sign at this location shown right on the development plan, which is a little bit unique. Typically, we don't have signage indicated on a development plan. So it was, in my opinion, it was anticipated that there would be identification sign at this location. If you would flip to the next page, please. This is the layout of the access easement, Wellington Way. The location of the sign, and it's a little bit of a serpentine drive as best we could, and a 60-foot wide easement. We've tried to make it a little more of an experience than just a runway shot, so we've incorporated some landscape islands in there to enhance the quality of the experience back to the parking lot. Quest Community Church, my direction from them has been to make it as aesthetic of a drive as possible, focusing more on the aesthetics to make it a really welcoming experience. And that is the effort that we're trying to do from the entrance all the way back to the destination and entrance to the church. If you would flip to the next page. At the top drawing there, that's the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church as viewed from Wellington Way. And this is their entrance sign, their driveway that comes in off the circle there at Wellington Way. In the bottom, you can see Ashland Avenue Church here. This is Wellington Way. This is the entrance that exists cut in onto Wellington Way, and the driveway will go back, and that is the Quest Community Church in the background there. And if you look at that image, that's a good illustration, this one right here, where we do need some reinforced identification that you're entering the Quest driveway because the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church is such a predominant view in that perspective. The next page shows the Quest Community Church entrance off of Sporting Court. This is Sporting Court cul-de-sac right there. you enter in their parking lot is over here with the larger parking lots that the draft access will enter in on the side back here this is their main door where you enter for the the vestibule area and then the larger parking lot enters and it's just kind of a continuation of that vestibule area They have no signage, no freestanding signage. They have the permitted wall-mounted, building-mounted signage, so they haven't utilized their permitted freestanding sign at their existing location. The next page is a detail of the entrance showing Wellington Way and that median with the sign being proposed and the median at that location. The sign is 8 feet by 5 feet, maximum permitted 40 square feet for an identification sign, and is set 10 feet back in accordance with an identification sign requirement. The next pages are a review of the sign regulations, and the very first item there is the sign regulations intent, And I think, I guess our perspective here is, and why I believe you have the authority, is in the definition of what we are. Are we an identification sign or are we an advertising sign? And I don't believe we meet the definition of an advertising sign, and particularly we don't meet the practice of what an advertising sign is being, how it is being utilized in Lexington and probably throughout the United States as a billboard. But if you look at the intent of the sign regulations, and I've highlighted important parts, It's a legitimate need for identification. The signage is a legitimate need for identification. In our instance, we're identifying the entrance, primary entrance to the Quest Community Church. The promoting signage that does not unduly distract or detract from the overall aesthetics of the community. I believe the sign that we're proposing meets that intent. protects property values I think adequately identifying a property and is protecting property values and improves public safety good signage improves public safety knowing where to go where to turn and where you're looking to enter a property certainly enhances public safety and then the bottom one there that could really provide in terms of the nature and scale of the activities to be identified. I think our sign is reasonable. It's in scale with what we are proposing on Wellington Way and the proposed use. On the next page 17-2 I've highlighted the identification sign. A sign which establishes the identity of a building or building complex by name or symbol or combines names, streets, addresses, and or management and has no direct advertising value. Absent from there is that it has to be on your property. It doesn't say that it has to be on your specific premises. It just gives the intent and the purpose of the identification sign and that is what we are providing is an identification to the Quest Community Church entrance. The advertising sign as the staff identified, yes it does reference that advertisement signs are on someone else's property but it does not indicate that identification sign is required to be on your property with regards to why i believe the sign should be permitted on the next page on 17-10 of the ordinance under the professional office permitted zones we meet those requirements. We are not in excess of 10 feet high and as I mentioned earlier where this will be our one identification freestanding sign. We meet the the 40-foot maximum square footage and we're outside the 10-foot setback. Now with regards to advertising signs, the next few pages identify advertising signs and they're quite different they have a an allowance of 40 feet in height we're nowhere near there they also allow it to be 4,000 or 400 square feet in area and that defines basically a billboard and on the other the last page of my handout you can see the billboards there those are just typical billboards around town and they do exactly what the definition for for an advertising sign does. They are for off-site advertisement. They're at a scale that is for advertising on a highway. And if you look at some of those, they actually say, turn here, take your next right. And that's not what we're doing. We're saying this is the entrance to the church and we are identifying that location. so those were the uh we believe we have a uh an identification sign we are not advertising per se but we are identifying for public safety as to where you enter to for the quest community Church and ask for your approval. And I passed out the other sign and that's the sign that we are proposing and I believe it to be an identification sign. If you have any questions or did you want to speak? Mr. Barrett, I have a question about, let me let's turn the lights up if you don't mind so I can see what I'm looking at. I like the drawing, for example. There's a lot of greenery in that. I presume this is what it's going to look like when you're finished. That's the intent, yes, sir. Okay. I'm concerned, as I think we all are, about the precedent-setting nature of what we're about to decide. We don't want this to create a precedent for advertising signs for other entities who want to do the same or similar or things that might look similar to what the church is doing with its signage. So are you concerned about the precedent of the decision that we might make on your application? Well, that's always a concern. I think what sets us unique is that we are within an access easement, and the access easement is direct entrance into our property. It's not allowing access to multiple properties. It's pretty much an extension of the church's property. So I can see that as a means of separation, and I would not agree with Jimmy that access easements are easy to come by. There's a mutual agreement between two parties, and they're not as freely given as just by asking. So the other concern that Jimmy raised was about consolidating the properties, and Quest Community Church proposed that to Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, but they're not in agreement with that, and that's their right. But we're happy that we have an access easement that directs traffic to the property. I have, I guess, a follow-up. The current access to the church is on the other side of the Ashland Avenue church. Is that correct? It's up Sporting Court. It's off of Sporting Court, yes, sir. And if you were visiting the church from Sporting Court, would you be able to drive back to the proposed new parking lot? Yes, you can make your way around there. Yes. Is there any signage at Sporting Court to identify that that's an entrance to the Quest Church? No, there is not. that's uh ruchio is that ruchio way ruchio way and sporting court uh is the intersection behind meyer and no there there would be no sign signage there and there is no uh um freestanding sign at their cul-de-sac entrance there is on the building but no freestanding sign Thank you. Mr. Greggs? Mr. Barrett, one of your arguments that you thought made this a special case is that this access easement wouldn't be accessing other properties, but in fact when Ashland Baptist expands their parking lot, then you'll both be using this. Right. So there will need to be a change in the signage then, I would imagine, so that their customers would come in the same way. That is a consideration. I think they are interested in sharing the sign, but we will coordinate between the two churches as to how that signage is permitted. that they have their existing sign at the circle. So they may want to address that. I know they want to share the church if and when they ever tie into that. But when I said that it doesn't, I was speaking of properties beyond the property that we pass through. It's not multiple properties that are tying on to the easement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Does anybody else have any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Yes, sir. Please come to the mic and state your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Roger Holland, and I represent Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. I'm one of the trustees there and the chairman of Deacons. I just want to give you a little background along with what Mr. Barrett has explained to you. If we were able to go back in time about 20-some-odd years ago when R.J. Reynolds on the property and it was parceled out to different developers and that sort of thing, Ashland Avenue bought somewhere in the neighborhood of around 48 acres of that piece of property. And the original footprint reflected this access because the intent at that time was to have a senior living facility there, a university or a small Bible college, and to have football fields and soccer fields. And over time, we haven't lost that vision, but what did come about, obviously, is Quest became a neighbor. And they bought a parcel of land that was illustrated and highlighted in the map there, or the plat. And this took place about six years ago. And in that agreement and in the deed, there was the option for Quest Community Church to build this road. It was part of their phase. It was an agreement that both of our churches actually put to print. and had that not happened i guess at some point if we were putting a senior living facility back on that property or if we were building football fields or whatever it was soccer fields back in that property i would make an assumption if that we may have had to come to you all or whoever the board might be at that time and ask how would we be able to utilize that means of access to reach those areas of the property it's not the primary part of our property right now that we use we do have long-range plans and that could be three months three years ten years from now at some point when the plan would be to have parking lots that could be accessed through this area here and so at the time that quest community church bought this parcel of land we agreed that if this roadway came about that we would both use that road to access our parking lots and they would be able to use it to access theirs. And we understand why they're asking to do this, because there's one way into their place, and there's a lot of traffic issues because they're at the end of a court. Champs Roller Rink is back there. There's some body shops and some other properties that are utilized, and a lot of in and out traffic coming onto Roosio Way and then going down to Sporting Goods Court. I guess our question is, or some things that kind of came to mind as we bulleted it. First of all, Mr. Griffin asked if we could support this, and we did that by submitting a letter. We met with our attorney and everything about the final decision that comes from this board. and ultimately if this board sees fit to grant them the permit to do this there are some other players there's the wellington maintenance association board that oversees kinds of signs and things that we know i happen to be the church rep for wellington maintenance association we know that people can't put billboards up there that this was adjudicated a long time ago when the stonewall and the watershed issues and everything were addressed before people started building things in the wellington community obviously our our issue is if you chose not to permit them to build this sign or put this sign there what would we need to do if we decide to do this in three years ten years or whenever is this considered to be an off-site issue how do we mark this so that folks will know that this is how you get to different things that are going on at ashland and uh we know that they'll do it well they'll well just look at the picture if they can just do what the picture says there it's very appealing to the neighborhood and everything uh our question is you know obviously we wouldn't want something up there that would obstruct the view of traffic when they come up Wellington way but we do know that it's important for them if this is going to be their primary means of getting in and out of their uh into their worship center that uh this would appear to be the right thing to do but we want to be we want to everybody to be mutually understand it that we're going to use this road too at some point another and it's important right now whether we name it, whatever we name it, if there's a name, people need to know that this is the way that you get to Quest and this is the way that you get to Ashland. Thank you, Mr. Collins. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Griggs? So are you comfortable with this proposal and you can work out the issues when you need to add identification in the future? You'll just work it out then? Mr. Griffin and I, we talked the other day and I'm not going to stand here and say, no, we're not comfortable with that sign right now because we think it's important right now. And that's part of this future development. We want folks to know that when they turn off of Wellington, they can't get to Ashland yet. And so that's something that we're going to have to work through. and if we have a mutual agreement and we'll work together to accomplish the good for the community and those people traveling wellington way then we're not opposed to this we understand and you know it's what's going to happen if you all say it's okay and is there going to be some hoops that we have to jump through down the road when we need to put a sign uh i mean are we going to have to put a sign that's beside their sign that says ashland avenue well you know we're having a problem right now getting two signs on the property you wouldn't want three so it would seem like right now we need to address what if we put one sign there that says ashland avenue and quest community church and folks that travel wellington will know that we can go down this road and get to both places well right now you don't have access to your church or your parking lot from that. Not through this. That cut out was put there with the intent based upon the original footprint that when we bought the parcel of land and everything. I'm trying to figure out how we can take action on this today without you feeling like you're boxed in. So do you need to make an arrangement with them now? Do we need to continue this for a month? Do you all come up with an arrangement? I don't think we do. And the reason that I think is our letter that should be in your packet there addresses this issue. This has to be resolved by the 30th of June of this year. Action Avenue has to be comfortable with the sign that's going to ultimately be put out there, if you all permit them to have a sign. So, I don't know what to do with this. Thank you, Mr. Highland. Does anybody else have any other questions mr barrett pastor dave would like to uh kind of uh comment on uh mr holland's comments and also go through a little bit of the traffic uh movement at the church with their activities and services pastor state your name for the record please yes pastor dave griffith from Quest Community Church. I'm one of the pastoral staff there, and I've actually had the privilege of working with Ashland as we've developed these plans through the years. And now to this point, we actually have discussed the entrance and signage and that sort of thing over the last weeks, and we've been keeping them informed on what is going in there for aesthetics, but also just that we know this is actually on their property. So we'll be submitting those plans to them as things continue. Mr. Holland and I were talking just this week about this issue, about signage. And, Mr. Griggs, what you were just referencing as far as access to the property now, if I'm sitting in your shoes, I agree with what he said. I don't think you want to continue to add signs. Mr. Holland and I were talking about establishing this signage, meet all the regulations that are in place right now, if that sign, if and when, if it is three years from now, ten years from now, whatever the time is, that that entrance is put in and their parking lots are there, we can and have been working together to have an agreement on how that signage would be placed. Directional signs, this one I think is an identification sign. Directional signs, once you turn onto the property, can direct people into either entrance. And this sign could even be modified at that point to represent Ashland and Quest, and we would work that out between us. the other thing i wanted to just mention is the whole reason for this development and it was my understanding at the point of rezoning and the purchase of this property in fact i think it was the planning and zoning commission's not just a statement but urgency that sporting court is really a beginning to be more and more of an issue as we have grown the soccer fields are there the The Kentucky indoor fields are there, Champ's Roller Drone, Myers parking lot, the auto body that he mentioned. We're continuing to see heavy traffic on not just on a Sunday morning but on other nights of the week and throughout that time. So it was at the time when this plat was issued that they would allow the parking, number of parking spaces for the current access through the cul-de-sac of 410 Sporting Court. The statement was made at that time when the parking lot is expanded There's going to be that much more traffic flow on Sporting Court Which will create that much more of a traffic issue That was almost a mandatory thing for this easement to connect those lots. So we're going to be adding an additional Do you know that how many spaces? Yeah, an additional 250 spaces which in our in our desire and I think is the desire of the city also to allow a spot where the traffic issues that are on Sporting Court will be relieved by this. Our concern was if we just open the entrance and there's confusion about where to go in fact Ashland and I have talked about that about how to designate that so people really know where they're traveling to create a traffic flow in the right direction and we can kind of relieve some of the pressure off of sporting court. Thank you Pastor. Does anyone have any questions for the pastor? Very good. I'd like to ask staff, Mr. Inners, did you want to respond to anything that's been said or you need a minute? Okay. Folks, we'd like to adjourn for five minutes. The End Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the road. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh so Mr. Emmons. The staff does have one additional comment for the subject property. The staff would like to point out that we do stand by our recommendation that this is an advertising sign. However, based off of some of the additional information that was presented to the hearing today and in consultation with the law department, I believe that the law department has crafted some additional findings in addition to Mr. Barrett's findings. The staff can agree to most of the applicant's findings. Some of those things that did come out today during the hearing that was not in the original findings were, and kind of salient to the findings that were passed out, were that this access easement is, speaking to the scale of it, it's a 60-foot wide access easement. it's over a thousand feet of roadway that could have otherwise have been presented as a private street could have met the definitions of a private street going back through there those are that really kind of speaks to the scale this is not just a little i've made a deal to get around the regulations and i believe that the other thing that uh that the staff points out the staff still does disagree with the applicant on their item number two that this is an identification sign But I believe that the law department has passed out a finding that the sign as proposed today is more similar to an identification sign than an advertising sign. And those are significant factors that came out in today's hearing. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Mr. Glover or Mr. Griggs, do you have something that you'd like to share? Mr. Chairman, first of all, a procedural question. When we review or when we're asked to decide an administrative decision called administrative review on our docket, what's the question that we're answering? Are we granting the appeal? If so, what remedy are we? What's the question that we're? Ms. Jones? I think what they're asking you to do is, under the provisions for the Board of Adjustment, they're asking you to review the decision of building inspection about the permitting of the sign, and they disagree with the interpretation building inspection made. So they're asking you all to take a look at that interpretation and determine whether or not you think it would be compliant with the ordinance so it could be permitted. Okay. Here is a motion. Very good. Mr. Glover? Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the appeal and interpret the ordinance based on three findings of fact, and I'll read them to you. Findings of fact for granting the appeal. Number one, the intent of the sign ordinance pursuant to Article 17 indicates that the sign ordinance is to address a legitimate need for identification and improve public safety as an entrance location. Number two, that this sign, this proposal, is more like an identification sign than an advertising sign, so long as it is built as depicted in the drawings submitted by the applicant that I believe are part of the record. and number three findings that the nature of the access is 60 feet wide approximately a thousand feet long and it is in fact similar in nature to a private street or drive and create a circumstance in this case to identify this entrance as an entrance to the church and church property. and we moved to approve the appeal based on the reasons that are listed in Mr. Barrett's letter to the chairman except for reason number two, and those are, and I can read them if you like, They are, number one, an identification sign is permitted in the professional office P1 zone. Number two, the proposed sign meets the required 10-foot setback in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Number three, the proposed sign does not exceed the permitted 40 square feet per zoning ordinance. Number four, the sign does not exceed the 10-foot height limit of the zoning ordinance. Number five, the proposed sign is the only freestanding sign identifying Quest Community Church. The Ashland Avenue Baptist Church also has one freestanding sign, and the zoning ordinance allows one freestanding identification sign per building. Number six, the identification sign is located within the access easement, providing direct access from the public street, Wellington Way, to Quest Community Church. The location of the sign will enhance public safety through improved wayfinding for the public looking for Quest Community Church. The sign will distinguish the Quest Community Church entrance from the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church entrance. The Ashland Avenue Baptist Church supports the Quest Community Church sign request. And finally, number seven, the proposed access is in accordance with the approved development plans for Quest Community Church and Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. The proposed access serving the Quest Community Church will significantly help distribute and organize traffic patterns during peak periods such as Saturday and Sunday services and special events. I think there was one more on the next page. Sorry. And number eight, advertising signs, thank you, as permitted in the highway services building, business, highway service business, warehouse slash wholesale and industrial zones are allowed to be 400 square feet and 40 feet in height, significantly larger in scale than the proposed identification sign conforming to the signage requirements in the professional office zone. Very good. So moved. Did everybody get that? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Your appeal is granted. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Good luck. Hope you get things worked out in the future, too, for the two churches and future signage. I think right now we need to go back to Sims Entertainment Group. Thank you. very much. The board has actually asked for a six-month review of the conditional use permit that we granted in October of 2012. We approved the conditional use permit to operate a nightclub with live entertainment and dancing. And we're up for review. And before we begin, I'd like to hear from staff. There were actually 11 conditions that are to be reviewed. And Mr. Emmons, can I ask you to respond first and foremost I'd like to remind the the board members that I did pass out to communications earlier before we started the quest community church one of those was an email from councilmember Diane Wallace and it had an attachment with some information from the police department and then the other one was from I'm sorry I'm sorry I lost who that one was from it's from miss Daniel Montague up with mr. Daniel Montague as far as the this there is there is no official staff report for this six-month review of the conditional use I believe mr. marks would confirm that during the six months that the Since this property has obtained their certificate of occupancy, we have not received any official zoning complaints about this particular property. However, as indicated in the letters that have come before you, I do believe that there will be some neighborhood opposition to this use today. Very good. Staff will be available for questions should they come up. Come back up, if you would, please, Mr. Grash. I see that there's some opposition here today as well. I know you all went out in the hall and talked a little bit, and obviously that did not work out to a mutual benefit. So we have had several complaints, and I'd like to ask if I'd like to hear from the opposition first, if you would, and then you can address those. I'll be happy to, Mr. Chairman, but I do think we did reach an agreement. I think we do have an agreement among everyone. I think we were quite productive. Share that with us then. I believe the agreement comes down to we agreed to another review in six months. and also to add a provision or a condition, if you will, that there will be no underage parties on the property. No underage parties on the property? Yes. Parties, for instance, for people from 18 to 21 or 18 and up, but no alcohol, of course, served to any of the minors. And we did have a small number of those parties for business and various other reasons. We decided no longer to have any of those parties. Apparently, it's a belief that some of those parties did result in some of the disturbances in the neighborhood, so that was an easy agreement. There will be no other underage parties. Very good, and that was acceptable to the opposition. Would you come forward, please, state your name for the record? Good afternoon. I'm Sally Warfield. I'm the legislative aide for the 3rd District, and it was originally the 3rd District Office's position that we were in opposition to this, But after having spoken with constituents who came here today and also with the property owners, we've agreed that if two additional stipulations are added, one that there will be nobody 18 to 21 attending any parties at 815 Euclid, and also that we have another six-month review, we will not oppose the conditional use permit at this time. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I didn't understand who you were. I just missed it right at the beginning. I'm the legislative aide for the 3rd District. Legislative aide? Yes. For Diane Lawless? Yes, for Diane Lawless. Thank you. Very good. Did you have a comment? If I could comment just on a couple of matters, I believe they misspoke a little bit. Said no one on the property from 18 to 21. We, of course, do want to have 21-year-olds. No one under 21 on the property, of course. The other thing I would point out is I believe we almost have a jurisdictional question. This is being presented as a review of the conditional use permit. I don't believe that's why we're here. More properly, we're here to review what was done, they say, six months ago. It was actually done in October of 2012. This conditional use permit has existed since 1991. J.D. McHarg had the bar there. It was, you probably remember, it was Blue Moon Saloon. I think it went through a couple other changes. What had happened when Mr. McHarg got the conditional use permit in 1991, the conditional use permit stated that the bar could stay open until 1 p.m., which was the legal time at that point. I believe in 2007, the council extended bar hours to 2.30. We came back in October of 2012 merely to ask that the conditional use permit that we already had be amended to allow us to stay open that extra hour and a half. And that's what happened in October of 2012. That amendment was approved, and it was approved with a condition that we come back in six months, which ended up being 14 or 15 months, that we come back for review, and that there were, I think, staff recommended ten conditions that are listed in your report that needed to be met during that period of review. Staff recommended, I think, nine or ten during the hearing. Another one was added. And so the purpose of coming back today is not for a review of the conditional use permit. It's for a review of that additional hour and a half and, more particularly, whether those ten listed conditions have been met. So I just bring that because I think that's the proper stance, what we'll be doing when we come back in six months or whatever is being considered today, as opposed to a review of the conditional use permit in its entirety. Thank you. Mr. Griggs? I think that's a good point, and we probably should hear from code enforcement if there have been any reported violations of these ten conditions. And since there have been so many police reports to this property in the last six months, I don't know if we are allowed to add another condition, but the neighborhood's upset because of the behavior that goes on inside and outside this bar. and if that needs to be regulated as a condition to this conditional use, if there's a way to add that, we might want to consider it. Since the conditional use was amended in 2012, we have not had any official zoning complaints in our office. We were aware that concerns were addressed to the council office, but we did not have any official complaints with the zoning enforcement office. Did you want to say something again? Ms. Warfield. Speaking of what he just said, I'd like to point out that it does say in October of 2012 that the board approved a conditional use permit to operate a nightclub with live entertainment and dancing, period, not just the additional hour and a half. One of those conditions for approval was the six-month review and in order to determine if surrounding property owners had experienced any adverse impacts. So it's not just 1 through 11. The conditional use for the live entertainment and dancing that was established in October 2012 did include the provision that there would be no adverse impacts from the use to the surrounding property owners. Thank you. And condition number 10, in the last part of condition number 10, it says that the emissions from this bar will not create a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. And that doesn't just need to mean sound. It can mean everything that's going on outside your door. So it might be in six months when we re-review this, that if there's the same kind of police report that we have here today, it may be that you're not meeting your conditions, and your conditional use could be subject to with you could lose it. That's what I believe. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. And I think Mr. Griggs' question about additional conditions being added, do we have that authority to do that? I think you do because the parties have agreed to it. So you could just add as conditions 12 and 13, you know, conditions to which the parties agreed, an additional six-month review and the condition that no underage parties for the ages between 18 and 20 will take place at this location. Well, I have a thought related to the literature that we've been, you know, the complaints that have been noted in our handout. I'm thinking about cleanup. You know, these people have broken glass. And who's responsible for the cleanup as far as broken glass and whatever else is on the sidewalks that people wake up to? Ms. Warfield. If I can address that, part of the discussion that we had out in the hallway was that informally, the property owners would ensure that there is extra cleanup that happens after an event or after regular operation. We're not including that as one of the terms here, but it was an informal agreement. And that is why we are asking for an additional review in six months, is because we want to see if these sort of informal stipulations can hold. And, of course, if they don't, then we'll be back here opposing again. Thank you. If I may add just a few things, there are several bars and nightclubs and restaurants that serve alcohol in this area. In fact, one of the discussions we had with the Chevy Chase Plaza owners was the fact that these problems have persisted and have persisted in recent weeks. We haven't been open in recent weeks. We're only open on Friday and Saturday nights. As I said, there are other bars. With respect to litter cans, glasses, things like that, we don't allow that outside our bar. There's somebody at the door. No one's allowed to pass outside the door with anything in their hand. Now, on the other hand, one of the facilities right next to us has a patio, and they are allowed to have containers. The patrons are allowed to have containers outside. So the point being is there are multiple bars or multiple restaurants here. I think it's unfair to naturally just assume that they're all attributed to our one bar when there are four or five in the area. This police report is address specific, and you've got 15 calls from the police department, and no other address has more than five. And only two others have five of all these addresses. So it is fairly conclusive that your bar is the lion's share of the problem on the street. I understand the police report. I don't believe that all 15 are, frankly, attributable to us or are a type of thing that would be fairly attributable to us. But I understand the contents of the police report and your concerns, and we wish to address those. Very good. Well, we've got before us a six-month review, which I think the parties have agreed to do, and also adding that as a condition and also adding the underage parties, no one under 20 years old. I think we're under 21. So that's part of the conditions. I think that if you all agree to do so, I think we need a motion to accept these additional two conditions and review in six months. We'll entertain a motion to do that. Mr. Chair, I move that we review C-2012-70, Sims Entertainment Group, LLC, in six months, and that we add two additional conditions, number one being that no one under 21 is allowed on the premises, and number two is that we review this case in six months. We've got a motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Smith, seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Good luck. We'll see you in six months. Hopefully all works out well for the bar and the patrons and the neighbors. I'd like to ask the other case that had opposition was C-2014, the Living Arts and Science Center. Would you come forward, please? Mr. if you would come come forward go ahead and say no state your name for the record please. I'm Mick Jeffries. Are you the applicant or are you the opposition? No I'm the opposition that's what I was wondering. You need to stand back then because I asked for the applicant. Thank you Mr. Jeffries. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Your name for the record? Board members it's Chris Howard. Mr. Howard, we just got something hand-delivered to us. Can you just take a, let me take a second to read it. Okay. Mr. Howard, the staff has actually recommended approval for your conditional use permit to expand your existing facility subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? We do. Very well. We do have some opposition that is opposed to the expansion, so I'd like to go ahead and ask that you have a seat, if you would, for a moment. We'd like to listen to the opposition, and you'll get a chance to respond. Thank you. Yes, sir. State your name for the record, please. My name is Mick Jeffries. Yes, Ms. Jeffries. Let's see. I think I have a PowerPoint presentation, if we can do that. I haven't used this thing before. Thanks so much for hearing me. It's very interesting and exciting to be involved in government. I've never done this before. My wife Lucy Points and I and our daughter Libby Lee live on Camp C Place. We adore the street and have lived there for eight years. And we are the only direct fence neighbor to the Living Arts and Science Center, an organization that I'm very fond of and that I am on a first-name basis with the people who operate. I wanted to share with you a kind of a treatise, if you will, on some sort of basic objections that we have to some specific aspects. It was pointed out to me to mention, and this is absolutely true to say, we're friends, but we disagree on aspects of this. so I've made this and we'll just kind of hustle through this good neighbors on Camp C I just kind of want to talk about zoning and the idea of zoning and you know I don't mean to talk down to you all at all so I obviously know much less about this than you do why zoning you know to protect property owners of course to protect businesses to make sure that everybody gets along to help everybody get along just fine. Our home is on Camp C. Camp C Place is a neighborhood of 80 to 100-year-old houses. I call it the street that time forgot sometimes. It's mostly owner-occupied houses. That's all there is. It's a residential neighborhood with houses. We do have some drug dealers, but we are winning that war because of a strong neighborhood association. This is our cottage, our little cottage, 239 Campsy Place. Here's my wife, Lucy. Over to the side, you'll see the area. I'm afraid to push this. It might explode. But I don't know if this will... Oh, yeah. Okay, so this is the Living Arts and Science Center over here. Here. Okay, there we go. And this is our house. so there is one more neighbor on our street it's a completely residential street as I said composed the way I described it but there is one more neighbor and that's the Living Arts and Science Center the Living Arts and Science Center is in the Kincaid House historic mansion it's not a residence it's a community center it's the largest property in the neighborhood which I estimate to be seven times more land than the nearest neighbor about 1.3 acres and the Living Arts and Science Center this is kind of the core of what I want to talk about is you know they fall under the they fall under the category there they get a zoning adjustment because in my mind and I've had to come up to speed on this very fast they are a good neighbor you know and so as being a part of residential neighborhood in my mind the rest The residents of CAMC and the sort of government at large generally said, you guys largely cooperate. You're a good neighbor. So we'll have you in even though you're not really residents per se. And that's how it is that the Living Arts and Science Center gets an adjustment, you know, sort of a free pass. That's great. I love that. The Living Arts and Science Center wants to expand, you know, and I think that it's a wonderful facility. They want to offer more cool community stuff, be more accessible to even more people. that's great too. The Living Arts and Science Center wants to create an 11,000 square foot expansion. It's a new addition that makes to me, to my mind, what started out in a historic mansion. Now it's more of a complex because now we've got kind of a modern wing coming off of it. I have no problem with modern architecture. I don't have a problem with that at all. But now it's big. Now it's pretty, pretty, really big. It's designed by Louisvillians, but at least you guys are from Kentucky. Okay. Now here's where I have a problem. The Living Arts and Science Center decides on their site, which is 1.3 acres, to build an 11,000 square foot, 30 foot tall building as close and as tall as zoning will allow to their only residential neighbor. That's us. That's me and my wife and my daughter. The way the Living Arts and Science Center, of course, exists on this corner lot, I suppose. And so you've got the whole neighborhood to consider. But no one has the position that's quite like ours, which is that we are the only people that share offense with them. The only people that share offense with them. And to me, it's not neighborly when I finally sort of realized what was happening. I don't think that it is neighborly when you've got 1.3 acres to say, we're going to push our building back and build it as close and as tall to your house as we can. As we said, Camps is this historic district. The only non-resident is the Living Arts and Science Center. And they have the most land of all, of anyone there. Seven times more than any person there. But their idea is to put a distinctly non-residential style addition 10 feet from their only neighbor. To me, that is not very neighborly. Again, do I have a problem with modern architecture? I do not. I do have a problem in a historic residential neighborhood of houses that are 80 to 100 years old with the idea of a building that has a somewhat commercial look to it. And again, I'm not talking about the whole building, but talking about the side that faces us. Let me show you here. Over here is the property line. Over here is the property line, and here's the side of this building, which is about, it's 29 feet tall. I'm sure they'll clarify when they come up. That's what I was told a little earlier today. I was having trouble finding out how tall it was. Now, the problem I So, you know, and then there's this kind of great development. There's our big addition and landscaping and all kinds of good stuff. There's something missing from this map. And the thing that's missing is our house. You know, I know it's not part of their plan. But when you see that our house is right here and there isn't anything else like that. This is a street. This is a street. This is a street. There is an apartment building over here. But the reason I'm here in front of you today and appreciating the opportunity to be here is because nobody really matches the sort of, do we have a bigger problem with it than anybody could? Yes, for good reason, because we're right there. So what we've got then is, oh yeah, there we go. So this is us, 1,700 square feet, it's a little cottage, one and a half stories tall, it's like 22 feet tall. I never know if I'm 17 foot at the desert architecture things that I'm not sure I even understand. Back to our family. Back to my wife again. I always come back to. And then this is, you'll pardon my sort of caveman graphics here. This is from Google Maps. And the only thing probably more disturbing than my wife having been captured by some Google car driving by is the idea of this is the general sort of shape of this mass that we're about to have right beside our house, right beside the only neighbor, the conditional use tenant, the Living Arts and Science Center, has on their 1.3 acres, and they decided to put this right beside our house, which is, it makes us sad. I'll show you some reasons why. But first, let me show you. As you drive down Camp C, like going towards Martin Luther King, again, this is our house here. This is the Living Arts and Science Center. This is the Susan Thompson Pavilion, which was built and named after the creator of the Living Arts and Science Center. Let's see. And then you sort of place a mass here. And again, please, I apologize for my caveman graphics. We're trying to represent things on the information that I have. It's designed to be as sort of accurate as possible in terms of appearing to see what it looks like at 30 feet next to our house. There is kind of a corner here, a corner line. So this area here faces our house. And as you'll see in a minute, the entire east bank of our windows becomes something that is no longer seeing the air. It's no longer seen in the sky. So, again, with my wife's absolute protest, I'm going to show you the inside of our house. Our dining room. This is all looking east. This is our dining room. And, of course, you see the Susan Thompson Pavilion here. And then, you know, this is what happens when you put a wall there, a wall that we've been told, you know, originally by design would be a sort of wood-clad wall that could be green. so I've sort of made it green. My belief is sitting at this table, and it's hard to do some of this geometry, that we would not be able to see the sky anymore. If it's possible that my geometry is a little off, let's lower the top of the wall there. And so now we've got this big wall, and I can see just a little bit of sky up there. this is upstairs in our house which is in our daughter's room and again looking out that same direction I did an incredible pitiful job in Photoshop trying to keep these tree branches in which are the ones that are close to us and then the rest of this is a wall because again at this point we're at about 20 well about 18 feet or something like that so you're looking out and you're looking at a wall I won't torture you with the same kind of treatment here but this is our front living room and this is the dining room we're looking at and this is the kitchen and this is the same wall so what we have here are a wall of windows in our small cottage that we look at a thousand times a day and what we see out there the sky and the air and the trees is about to be replaced by a 30 foot wall now I say this isn't just about me and my family because part of what the main message that I wanted to sort of communicate here or my feelings anyway have to do with again the spirit of zoning and the idea here of being a good neighbor and what it means to be a part of a residential neighborhood and it's about neighborliness and to me the Living Arts and Science Center has been distinctively not, is tending towards not being a good neighbor by existing in a sort of adjustment situation where, again, they, just to rehash, are not the people who live in their house. They go home at the end of the day. They originally operated out of a giant, beautiful mansion, which is great, and will continue to. But now they want to build kind of a commercial structure. and that commercial structure is, I think, tragically chosen to be directly next to us. You know, what can be done? I wanted to ask for a continuance. We, as I said before, we are friends. We continue. We have talked about this. We disagree. We disagree on the matter. And as things stand, my family can't support the conditional use being granted for a non-residential entity without a design change that less dramatically affects the sort of residential quality, the scale quality, and the historical tone of the relationship between not just our house and the Living Arts and Science Center's addition, but but to some extent also you know the neighborhood um so you know as i stand here and again i appreciate getting to talk to you you know what i what my wife and i want is we one thing would be move the building back 25 feet from our property because that is where the edge of if you look here you know this is this is where the previous structure that's there that is going to get torn down to do this that's the closest edge to that i didn't you know i picked the one that's close to this kiln thing they have so you know so that's that's an option um and then you know the other one is rearrange the project and move the building somewhere else where where the Living Arts and Science Center's only fence neighbor, that's us, is not so adversely affected by this. So, because we lose property value, we lose quality of life and light, and potentially, I should have put potentially in there, we lose enthusiasm, respect, and fondness for our conditional neighbor, the Living Arts and Science Center, who we've always been very fond of. I can't keep those things for them without at least expressing this position. And that's what I'm here to do. I don't think any of these things have to happen if neighbors are good neighbors. And that's what I would like to see happen. So I'll answer any questions if you want. Yeah, I've got one. I think I saw a picture of this design a year ago, maybe two years ago. So have you been in constant communication with them about this problem? No, we haven't. And that has weighed on my conscience a great deal. My wife and I both come from very community-oriented families, and the shortest explanation for you is that life got in the way. We did not feel excluded from the process, nor did we feel we had a baby. right at the exact time that this was happening. We were new parents. And life simply got in the way. We, like many people, are busy people. And in fact, along the way, we were kind of happily hearing about the project. We were invited in general groups of people to comment or participate. on the development. My only bone of contention here is that as being the people that had a very unique impact, and I hope you'll see this, it is a unique impact on us. It is not like the people across the street. It is not like the people down the street. We are the ones who are the fence neighbors, the only ones who are the fence neighbors, and I feel that that merited maybe a little more outreach. A phone call? Knocking on the door? I don't know. I won't take the entire blame, nor will I cast off the entire blame for that. And so the simplest thing for me to say is life got in the way. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Jeffries? Okay. I'd like to hear from... Oh, yes. Yes, please come forward. State your name for the record. Yes, my name is Tom Kahn. I have lived at 218 Campsie Place for about 35 years. That is the house on Campsie Place that basically will face this building. Unlike Mr. Jeffries, the Living Arts and Science Center is no friend to me, and they aren't a good neighbor. And that goes back to something that happened in 1987, which is contained in your Board of Adjustments staff case report, and in the last paragraph. And that's where it discusses the last time that they were here. And the last time that they were here, part of what they wanted was to build an outdoor structure, an outdoor roof structure with no doors. And when I first heard about that, I thought, well, you know, whoever proposed the design of that structure didn't realize that it was being built down at the corner of Martin Luther King and 4th Street because the first thing that was apparent to me was that what was going to happen is that would become a frequent stop for street people, for homeless people, for people using drugs, for kids making a lot of noise late at night. And I don't know why in the world someone have proposed something like that because anybody who was aware of what what that part of town is like would have thought no that is totally inappropriate for this part of town but just because of the problems it's going to create for the people that live there and for me it creates a problem so they built this thing without as far as i can see any effort to make it compatible with our neighborhood or with the structure of the kinkane house and so what has happened to it over these years, well I guess it's because they were going to build something else, but they just let the roof rot down. You know people like me, if I were to let my roof rot down, I would get a notice from the city and I would be given 30 days, but it was never a problem for the city of Lexington that that's what happened to this building. So you know they're not my friend. Like I say, I've lived there for 35 years. Every day of those 35 years when I've gone outside my house, I've looked over to the historic Kincaid building, and I've looked across from 4th Street to the historic Brand Barrow building. And then when I look to the left, there's some big giant building, and I don't know the name of it. When I look down Campsie Place, it's a street of basically houses that were built about 1910. My house was built in 1907. I know that because when I stripped off the wallpaper, God had written there that he wallpapered my house on September 19th, 1907. But when I look at this structure that they're proposing, my question is, what could you have designed that would have been less compatible with the ambiance of this neighborhood? And I told them this afternoon, I don't know what they could have done other than to have paint the sides orange because I can't imagine anything that fits in less well with our neighborhood. About 30 years ago I think I went to some kind of city meeting in which they were soliciting the opinions of people downtown about what can we do to better develop downtown Lexington and my suggestion was that when you do things that affect residential neighborhoods your primary concern should be how is this going to affect the people that live down there not the people who work down there necessarily not the people are down there for a short period of time but the people who actually live there and experience whatever is going on down there every minute of their day you know and so one of the things i want you all to do before you make a decision I want you to let's have on this board here for everybody to see what this building looks like it's big green and glass because there's so much wrong that is happening with downtown Lexington you go everywhere you think well why did people ever allow something like that that well it was the zoning laws I guess but the thing is if you put that thing up there and look at it, you know, I can tell you what's going to happen. You know, if that thing gets built a year after it's built, five years after it's built, 30 years after it's built, when people drive down past that and they see that, their reaction is not going to be, wasn't that a beautiful design for this neighborhood? Oh, that fits in so well. Oh, that enhances this neighborhood. The reaction that people is going to be as who in the heck let them build something like that down there, something that is totally inappropriate, something that does nothing to enhance the quality of the life of the people who live there. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Kahn. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Kahn? Thank you. I'd like to hear from Mr. Howard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm Chris Howard with Carmen. have with me today i have heather lyons the executive director of living arts and science center also have the architect ross primer here as well he's more than willing to answer any questions that that the board may have the first thing i'd like to do is is let heather stand up and give a brief history of the living arts and science center and their relationship to the the community. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. I am the Executive Director of the Living Arts and Science Center. I came there eight years ago after having worked with the center two years previously. At one point it was when I was living in the neighborhood on Martin Luther King and we have several staff members who live in the neighborhood as well. The center is in a very exciting time right now. This is our 45th year of operating as a nonprofit organization. For 42 of those years, it has been at 362 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. That was at the very generous donation of the Kinkade family who built that house in 1847 and its descendants donated the house to the center to use and they used it for 10 years and then they donated the house and the property outright to the organization. So the house, the history, the Kincaid family who were abolitionists, they built housing in the neighborhood, they built houses on Camp C Street, they provided housing for freed slaves following the Civil War in what is now the East End, that history of the house and that family and the neighborhood has been extremely important to our organization throughout its history. When, over these several years, we have experienced considerable growth with the programs that we provide, a great deal of which are provided in our neighborhood. We provide free programs in five elementary schools, two of which are in our immediate neighborhood, the middle school that is one block from us, science after school programs, urban ecology programs, art after school programs. We have free monthly programs. A great deal of neighborhood residents participate in those. We have large community celebrations. Neighborhoods, residents participate in those. In fact, we go door to door with invitations to invite them to come. The Living Arts and Science Center was instrumental in getting the neighborhood association started. And ever since it started, those meetings have been held at the Living Arts and Science Center. So our organization is deeply embedded in the community. And when we began realizing that we needed to do something to respond to the overburdening of our historic building and the grounds and the programs that we were offering, it was with the neighborhood in mind and with transparency for our process. I think I wanted to just give you a sense of the extreme support that we have received from the community. Hundreds of donors, which have allowed us to get to $4.2 million of our $5 million campaign. Part of that funding is going to support our endowment fund to help maintain the property forevermore. $500,000 of that money, in fact. We have been supported from the city through the Stormwater Quality Grant. They have provided us a little over $70,000 to go toward permeable pavers that will be replacing all of the asphalt on our property. that is in keeping with our desire to not only provide an indoor space for our programs, but to ensure that the green space and the urban green space that we have is maximized. Residents use our property as a public park, and we welcome that. Our facility is open six days a week, free to the public. We also were supported from the city through $20,000 from the general fund and an additional $60,000 from UDAG funding. And I'm afraid right at this moment I cannot remember what UDAG stands for, but that was resulting funds for neighborhood development. and we have had very, very generous support throughout the community, which has allowed us to get to this point. We have a large scholarship program at the Living Arts and Science Center. This past year, we provided over 300 scholarships for low-income students to come in and participate in our classes. A great number of those come from our immediate neighborhood. and I think through everything that we have done, it has been with the immediate neighbors in mind. I think, Chris, did you want to speak more before I talk about the timeline? Okay, all right, I'll let Chris discuss the specifics. What about the 01? 01? 01. I just wanted to briefly kind of walk you through the design process and kind of the steps that have been taken for any building project, but particularly for this building project. It all starts with schematic design. During that time, you're programming your building. You are developing rough forms and shapes, developing adjacencies. And it's really important that all the stakeholders be involved at that time, which was why there was a community charrette held as part of that schematic design. And those results were posted on the center's website for kind of public consumption. Following that schematic design phase is called the design development phase. During this phase, all those rough shapes really get honed in on what room is this going to be and what's its size, what's its shape. And that's really where the design happens is in design development. And after design development, those drawings were presented at a community breakfast at the Living Arts and Science Center. Could I interrupt you just for a second? How was notice given to the neighborhood when you were soliciting neighborhood input or offering to share with the neighborhood? The design charrette, there were specific letters. There's a copy of that letter that went. So within a certain radius, you were keeping everyone informed by mail? Well, the design charrette was not a 100% requested participation. It was those participants were handpicked. Maybe handpick is a bad word, but there was a selective number. If you've ever been in a design charrette, you know, you have to have some order to the size of things in order to get complete the task. I'm sorry to interrupt your chain of thought, but can you just tell me how often your direct neighbors who testified a moment ago were contacted? When were they contacted, and how much of an effort did you make to let them know what was going on? I know it was in the newspaper. I know people should have taken it upon themselves to find out what's going on next door, but I was just wondering what you did to help them not be surprised after you'd gotten to a certain stage. Heather, handle those. I'll just jump in. The very first thing that we did, is my timeline here? Oh, I'm sorry. The very first thing was the design charrette, as he mentioned. There was a specific letter that was sent out, and in that packet is the copy of the letter that was sent to our immediate neighbor. Lucy Points and Mick Jeffries. That was sent on March 17, 2011 for the charrette that took place on April 11 of that same year. They didn't participate in that. The next opportunity that we sent a specific invitation was November 16, 2011, which was the breakfast that was held at the Living Arts and Science Center. There was a, as he mentioned, there have been the designs were put up on the website, there have been numerous articles, GTV3 features, and then specific presentations were made to the Neighborhood Association as well. I'm convinced you folks were reaching out. Thank you. Thank you. So really, I guess the point that I'm trying to make here with this design process is that there was this involvement. And the second thing that I wanted to point out is that the fact that Living Arts and Science Center is a nonprofit, this is a big issue. that as you go through this process the change curve and the cost the cost change curve increases exponentially it's a very sharp curve when you get towards where we are now which is in construction documents so that being said i want to jump right in to the site plan and kind of orient you into kind of what's going on on the site okay so what we have is the existing kincaid mansion here our proposed addition and you've already seen this it's in your packet is located here it's an 11 085 square foot two-story space what we've done is eliminated the parking along the front of the king cave mansion in this area that parking has been moved to fourth street that parking also is proposed in permeable pavers as heather mentioned we received the incentive grant from the from storm water incentive grant that will be used to put permeable pavers in this area we've provided much greater connectivity into the neighborhood both here on martin luther king paths and walkways along Camp C Street as well as the entrance on on Camp C Street the the plan also features extensive landscaping and gardens that's primary garden area is here along Camp C Street both vegetable gardens native gardens and then the other feature of those gardens is a rather large rain garden which takes care of storm water on the property the other thing that I want to mention is that with this large addition we were able to reduce the impervious area on site by 12.8% so we have a 12.8% reduction in impervious area with this addition and then the other thing in regards to the plan itself we have met the zoning requirements in terms of building setback and we have met the zoning requirements in terms of building height if you could go to 2a I want to speak directly to kind of the character of this residential neighborhood the architects and their staff went to great lengths to incorporate this building in this structure into the neighborhood both with as you can see the the the rhythm of the buildings as you go down Camp C Street with the height of the proposed structure in relation to other proposed residential buildings in the neighborhood all of this was taking into account so as you can see here the this is our proposed building frontage along Camp C Street I think we have a better rendering that I can show along Camp C Street we've the architect has taken great strides to match the cottage building with the first story line of the proposed building also with the other two-story residential buildings and matching the height of those buildings as you go. And just in relation, the building on the east side, it's actually the east side of our direct neighbor, is approximately a foot taller than we are. Could you go back to the drawing before? Yeah. The previous drawing. Between you and the Jeffries house and that huge tree in the middle, but there's also a columnar tree next to your building? That's part of, we realized after the letters went out, Mr. Jeffries has met with Heather to voice his concern over that wall. So if you could go to... I don't see any landscaping on this drawing that was in our... Right. I'm going to speak to that as well. If you could go to 3A, 3, I'm sorry, 2B. This is what we are proposing. Along that side wall is nine columnar European hornbeams. Are the Jeffreys aware of that? Yes, they are. Okay. Yes, they are. And we are willing to add that as a, I can't remember now if it's two or three conditions, as the third condition for this plan. We feel that strongly about moving forward with those hornbeams. So that's really the side view from the Jeffreys House on the inside of the fence row vegetation. And that's what we were proposing there. and it's also it needs to be noted that on the other side of this wall are architectural elements that that don't want windows there are there's a planetarium on the inside of that wall as well as an art gallery so those are those are two spaces that really as well as an interior stairwell but those are spaces that really don't you don't want that natural light into if you could go to slide three i want to just kind of speak a little more to these hornbeams that that's kind of the idea there that's that's those are actual hornbeams whereas mine are just graphically showing you but but that's it's called a pleached um pleached condition whereas you're really trimming those close and hornbeams are one of those plants that that can handle that kind of trimming and makes it even tighter and and more dense mr howard how tall are those warm beams typically I mean if you looked in literature they top out at 60 feet given these these conditions you know how large are do you what I have shown there is a 25 foot height that's what you're proposing that's what I have shown on that elevation yes are they deciduous they are deciduous but they have a very tight branching pattern and we feel like that that adds character in itself we you know we could offer up a pine tree but we feel like the the horn beam is going to provide more year-round interest especially with the green backdrop of the um of the building the other thing i wanted to mention that's this right here that side of the building has been has been very much thought about you know you may think of it as a blank wall but that's really not not its intent we the architect is using a um tongue and groove cypress siding that will be stained and that is roughly the the color of that stain so you can kind of picture this through the trees that you're really seeing this branching structure and then the green structure beyond and then finally i have a fourth slide think it's uh oh four and this is really that the the view that we're or the the property line that we're looking at you've already seen this mr jeffries has already shown this um but that that's really um where the buildings is going to go it is at the setback line actually it's it's it's one foot off the setback line um but but certainly um that's within uh the requirements of the zoning ordinance so with that i i think you know in terms of of why this should be approved is that living arts and science center has been um with its current use in the neighborhood for over 40 years the zoning requirements requirements both for building setback and building height have been met we are adding additional landscaping as a condition and lastly just things that have been mentioned in the staff report both in its um and i don't want to read it to you you've read it but just that the staff has reviewed the plan and has recommended approval thank you mr howard anybody have any other questions from mr howard Ma'am, I noticed that you've had your hand up a couple times. Did you want to say something? Ma'am, you need to come to the podium and state your name for the record. My name's Esther Murphy, and I just wanted to point out that when they use a little red pointer and they point over there, it never shows up here. Now, I understand that for the betterment of your watching, it would be nice here. However, everybody sitting in the audience then, when the person says, I'm pointing at the building on the left with their sign, and it doesn't show there, these good people here don't know what it is that they're pointing, being pointed at. Do I make myself clear? Yes, you do. bit so and you folks have the advantage of swivel chairs so you can just turn around and look at whatever they're pointing at there but the people here who are sitting in the back they they lose out on a great deal part of the discussion that would be so helpful and obviously they are here because they have an interest so I thought it would just be easier for them and everybody And then I had one other question. Yes, ma'am. When you suggest that people go outside and have these conversations to try to reach a decision amicably, do you mean to say that that is a private discussion out there and that anybody can't listen in on the conversations? No, ma'am, I'm not. I'm actually just saying that generally when we have an applicant and somebody that's opposed, we ask the applicant and the opposing party to go out and see if they can work out the differences, much like we had with the Sims Entertainment Group. Right. But as far as anybody being privy to that conversation, that question has never been raised. Okay, well, it has to be raised now, unfortunately, because in the Sims discussion, I went out there, and I was told by Mr. Brash that I may not be listening in because I'm the newsletter editor for the Aylesford Place Neighborhood Association newsletter, and therefore I have no business listening in because this was a private conversation and I was imposing myself and then Mr. Brash said that if I continue to stand there, he was going to leave and then he did. And I have asked your attorney and I have asked, is that really a rule? I mean, are these really private conversations going on out in the corridor? Ms. Murphy, I would have to defer to this is a policy that we've had for some time. I'm not sure if there's in fact a rule or any law regarding that. I'd have to ask the staff that question. There is not, but I would say if the persons, the parties that are involved that are speaking don't want somebody else in on the conversation, it's a matter of common courtesy to get out. It would just be, if they said, no, we don't want you to listen to this for whatever reason, It would just be common courtesy for the person that wants to listen to just step aside and say, okay. Why would we be talking about common courtesy if we're talking about public information? They brought to our end. It's not part of the public hearing. Ms. Murphy, I duly noted that we don't offer opinion on First Amendment rights. So I appreciate your comments, and thanks very much. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sure. You can come back up to the podium. Ms. Lyons. I just wanted to mention a couple of things regarding timing. For us, we have a very, very large programming schedule. We provide over 1,500 separate events a year, educational programs in our own facility as well as in schools. A very large part of that is during the summer months, and we were looking at everything is ready in place to be able to move forward and break ground early this spring so that we can then be ready in spring 2015. Many of our donations have been given to us with that knowledge, with that hope and suggestion that we're moving forward. This is not something we're raising money for to happen in the far distant future, that they're going to see a return on their support because we're really moving forward with the project. So I just wanted to let you know of the importance of our ability to move forward as the plans have been made and as the general approval has been suggested. I have a question. Ms. Bonner? Is this the first time that you've been aware of the depth of the opposition by your neighbors? I actually attached to your packet, I received a communication from Mr. Jeffries at the very end of December of 2013, just this past month. And I responded to him immediately. We met for the first time in that regard, I think on January 3rd, and then I immediately contacted our architects about their concerns, which at that time sounded very much like a beautification issue. You know, it was a blank wall. What can we do to make that more beautiful? So I contacted our architects, who in turn contacted our landscape architect, and he made a suggestion about the hornbeams. I sent that suggestion to them, and I didn't hear anything back until Monday of last week. And he did then, at that time, make a suggestion. He said, well, the hornbeam is one idea, but maybe a whole living garden on that wall might be a suggestion. So we talked again this past Wednesday, and then it was a little more involved. It wasn't just beautification anymore. It was the design of the wall. And then I spoke with him again last night. I called, trying to make another effort to talk with him. We had some further suggestions. but at that point it was proximity. It was too big, too close. And so I told him I didn't feel I was going to be able to adequately prepare by today for that because the complaint had changed. So I do feel that we made a very strong effort to involve the community, and in fact many community members have been involved, attended the charrettes. The president of the Neighborhood Association is on our advisory committee, as is another neighbor. So I feel like we made a very strong effort, and at no time was there participation from Mr. Jeffries or his wife, and I had never heard from Mr. Kahn in any way, and I wasn't there in 1987, and I don't know the history of that issue. We have also had concerns over that outdoor classroom though and have it is certainly the outdoor environment and how it is used was a very great deal of the conversations that we had in the planning and wanting to make sure that we were creating an environment that was safe not only for our own guests but for the neighborhood. Thank you Ms. Lyons. Anybody have any other questions anybody else have any other comment i do have a question just for just a moment did do you think this is an aesthetically pleasing building for this neighborhood me personally well did you the applicant yes i do i i think it's a beautiful building um a lot of what we had talked about, you know, our great desires when we were first meeting with architects, selecting the architect, was about wanting to be transparent, literally and figuratively. We wanted to bring the outdoors in. We wanted the people inside to be able to view our beautiful neighborhood. We wanted the historic building to remain prominent on our property. It's going to remain the main entrance. All of the concerns about that building, about the addition, was to not overshadow our historic building, which is on the National Register. And we, you know, one of the very important reasons we selected De Leon and Primer was because of their respect for the historic building as well as for the neighborhood. How old is the historic building was built in 1847 so it the name the building caddy corner to us was also built by a member of the same kincaid family right across the street from us is the episcopal diocese so that's that is another non-profit existing there in our neighborhood and can i ask the architects how what's the projected life span of this new building how all buildings have lifespans. How long do you expect this building to last? Thank you. State your name for the record please. Martin Primer, Deliana Primer Architecture Workshop. This building, because they are not for profit, we were asked and worked very hard to make sure that there's minimum maintenance for this building throughout the life of it. You can ask what that life is. The whole building is clad in cypress. Cypress came from the swamps. It's completely water-resistant. So the facade of that building should last without any maintenance at all for the first 20 years. And we decided to stain it instead of paint it so that it won't become an eyesore through the neighborhood. Stain over wood, gradually patinas, paint peels. So the programmatic lifespan of that, I don't know what they're going to change. The historic footprint or physical nature of this building was designed to last as any museum would. It was not meant to be a commercial structure that had a 15- or 20-year lifespan. It's meant to be there. And it's designed with that quality of construction and that amount of detailing. What's the projected lifespan of the building? Proposed addition? I'm sorry. If you could just restate that. It sounds like the building might die at some point. All buildings have a lifespan, a proposed projected lifespan, and I just wondered what it was for this building. Well, I would say of this building, it should go a good 40 to 60 years without a lot of necessary improvement or repair. If they want to keep it up, this thing could go on as long as the Kincaid House. We were asked to design it to that level of quality. Thank you. Does anybody else have any other questions? Mr. Griggs? Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2014-1, the Living Arts and Science Center, appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the existing facility in a planned neighborhood residential zone and high-density apartment zone at 362-364 Martin Luther King Boulevard, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to their two conditions and adding a third condition, that the addition of landscaping on the southeast side of the addition, as shown on the exhibits during the hearing. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. We have a motion with an added condition. Is there a second? Second. All in those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Please note that Mr. Glover, the chair votes aye. Thank you very much. Folks, we're going to take a five-minute break, and then we'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo We're going to go ahead and reconvene the Board of Adjustment. We have had a request from Mr. Todd to hold or to ask the board to hold a revocation hearing regarding Boone Creek. And before we begin, I'd like to I want to go on record by saying that this is not a hearing. I'm going to allow Mr. Todd to speak. I'm going to allow Mr. Murphy to speak, and I'm going to allow staff to speak. There will be no witnesses called. Mr. Todd, I'd like to ask you how long you think your presentation is going to be. I guess the most responsive comment would be how long do you want it to be? I don't want it to be any more than 10 minutes. Okay. Well, I think we can probably handle it in 10 or 15 minutes. All right. Let's try to keep it to 10, because if not, again, I just wanted to make it clear at all parties, Mr. Todd, that the board will decide whether or not we have a revocation hearing, and this is not a hearing today. So we'll ask you to present your side and let Mr. Murphy, and then we'll let staff, and then we'll go from there. Thanks very much. I have some exhibits that might take a little longer as we go through it. Let me begin by saying I certainly appreciate you taking your time to listen to us. And as you well know, this is not an adversarial, aggressive, confrontational setting. This is one where the neighbors have for a number of months, in excess of a year, actually petitioned to have a redress of this particular issue. and this is the only recourse they have to come before you as the body determinative and say, here are the problems that we have. We'd like for you to address it. And so take us from that vein. We're not wanting to be adversarial or unduly burdensome to you. We think this is an issue that is not only important in this particular instance, but obviously will affect the entire county over time. Okay. Our first basis for a revocation hearing asking you to consider it is clearly the statute, KRS 100.237, subparagraph 4, provides for administrative examination. Staff is to review conditional uses. The statute says these reviews should be conducted annually. and if there is a finding that the conditions are not being met or that the property is being used other than was originally permitted, then to bring this matter before you. So our first argument obviously is that there is a statutory basis for this. In addition to that, I think we have done a fairly good job of communicating with you and with staff as to our need for a revocation hearing. and as you know very well we've had I think two hearings on this this case or probably three before you I believe in February of last year after a lengthy letter complaint there was investigation and an NOV letter was issued on May 8th and then a formal hearing was conducted and after I guess four or five hours of consideration, you made the finding that, in fact, there was a violation. That case was subsequently appealed to the circuit court along with the other issue. And at that point in time, the Boone Creek Association sat and asked you whether or not a revocation hearing would be conducted, and there was some debate back and forth. Ultimately, the process was such, from our perspective, that the courts had taken these two cases and had entertained them based upon the appeals filed and we assumed at that point that the matter would wait until the courts had finished so i think i have sent to you a copy of the order signed by judge ishmael have you all seen that i send you a copy yes sir okay And that particular order indicates, in addition to the zip line question, that, and this is at page 4 of his opinion or his order, and it's paragraph 2. It says the property shall comply with the 2,000 conditional use permit and shall comply with the directives of the notice of violation issued on March 8, 2013, which is incorporated by reference. and further that this injunction shall remain in effect pending final adjudication of the appeals. And so it was our clear review of this order that he was to cease and desist from any activities related to the anglers club that were not in compliance with the original conditional use permit granted to him. And so, again, we have provided to you a number of instances where his activities at the site have far exceeded what was granted to him in 2000. And I've given you a list of those. I think I emailed those to you. in addition to that i've provided you a packet showing the advertisements which still continue to this day if you'd put that first one up for me jimmy this is an advertisement that's on the web page it indicates zipline lodging and the advertisement says whether you are here for a night, weekend, or week, your short-term membership will provide access to some of the best fishing, hiking in the area, as well as discounted rates on our world-class canopy tour. It's dated 124-14. I put a big NB. The Jesuits told me always to use Nodde Buenum there just to point out a specific thing thing that we want you to pay attention to the next page again same day 131 14 advertisements about private fishing resort corporate retreats next page if you flip over there talking about guided tours of boone creek anglers club 175 dollars three people per trip so forth they're touting not only the overnight use of their facility, they tout the fact that you don't have to be a permanent member, which is one of the conditions that they were given the permit for. It also indicates that you can stay for a week or whatever, and in essence, it's a hotel. So we think, obviously, that's another violation beyond the scope of the conditional use that was given to them. Flip to the next one, if you would. This photograph shows the site of this building, which is a non-conforming use, and the development plan, which is on the last page of the exhibits in your packet there. This building is a non-conforming use. It's located within the set-off from the Old Richmond Road, the highway setback. It's located over top of a gas transmission line. And as you can see, there was grass growing around, and it was not being utilized for public access. Since that point in time, they have built a parking lot with new ingress and egress without permits. As you can see from the photographs in the next two pages, this is a rather large parking lot designed to be utilized by a number of cars far in excess. And what was again given on the planning around the development plan and what was initially offered to the staff for their approval. them. So again, this is just another instance where they have gone ahead and done whatever they wanted without adhering to the conditions that were imposed upon them by the permit. Another issue that has arisen since that point in time they have constructed around this non-conforming use this building a rather large deck and platform that are to be used by people who are accessing it it obviously doesn't have anything to do with the anglers club and it's our position that you can't expand a non-conforming use there was no permit given for the construction of this improvement no grading permits were ever obtained from the staff for the construction of the parking lot or for the construction of the facilities that they use for ingress and egress in fact I don't think any permit has ever been obtained for any of the improvements that they've made out there an additional point under article 26 of the ordinances they're supposed to have been a tree preservation plan developed and submitted and prior to the construction of any additional recreational facilities including the zip lines which are now constructed in place. No tree preservation plan was ever developed, submitted for approval, and considered by the board. So limiting myself to 10 or 15 minutes here, I think I've given you enough instances and enough factual circumstances that would support your consideration of a revocation hearing. I think these neighbors have been active in this process. They have always done whatever they were instructed to do. They've communicated with you, communicated with the staff. They've provided documentation. They've done everything that has been asked of them. And what they're asking you now is to give them their day in court. They want to be heard on this revocation. And they have no other avenue for redress other than to approach you because you're the board that makes these decisions. So based on those facts and the little time we have, I would ask that you favorably review and grant their request for a revocation hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Todd. Very good. That was actually 10 minutes, so thanks very much. Mr. Murphy? Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Boone Creek Outdoors. Burgess Carey is with me and John Park who has been before you before on earlier cases. John is representing Boone Creek in the Fayette Circuit Court action and John is also the next-door neighbor of Mr. Carey and Boone Creek outdoors. I handed out to you just before the meeting a copy of our response. I'm not going to read that to you but I do want to hit the salient points here and discuss some of the matters that mr. Todd brought up the we obviously object to a revocation hearing first of all we are still operating under the same terms they've always operated under under the 2000 permit that was the permit for the anglers club we're not talking about the canopy tour and all that stuff you've heard plenty about that that's in court but we are operating in full compliance the same way we always have for the anglers club mr. Todd mentioned to you he said there is a an injunction order that states that the Boone Creek outdoors must operate in conformance with the 2000 permit in addition to ceasing the zipline tour anglers club excuse me in addition to stopping the tour with the tour was stopped immediately and mr. Carey has continued to operate the Angler's Club in agreement with the 2000 order. But the important part of that is if that's a part of the injunction order that Mr. Carey operate the Angler's Club in conformance with the 2000 permit, that is under the jurisdiction of Fayette Circuit Court to enforce that. If there's a problem, if he is violating that order that he comply with the 2000 permit from Fayette Circuit Court. Only Fayette Circuit Court can enforce that. That needs to be brought back to Fayette Circuit Court, where they brought the issue of the zip line. It is not in the jurisdiction of this board at this point. I want to mention a couple other things. In the letter to you, which was given to us by the staff on Tuesday, It is stated that if the Planning Commission goes ahead with the current zone change request, then they request a revocation before you. I want to point out to you the Planning Commission has postponed this for a month at our request. They have not postponed it permanently, but they have postponed it for a month. Third thing I mentioned, the letter from Mr. Todd appears to ask this board to issue an ultimatum or a demand to the Planning Commission. Another is what he said in his letter. If the Planning Commission elects to continue, we want a revocation hearing. And I think that's a bad precedent to set. If you're telling another agency they ought to stop doing something, just as it would be bad for the Urban County Council to tell you to postpone case number three on your agenda today because they didn't want you hearing it or else things would happen. That's not something boards do to each other. It's not a good policy to get into about that. But as I said, number four in my handout to you, these matters that are before you today, and even some of the handouts that you've got, have been reviewed and are in litigation in Fayette Circuit Court. Many of these were discussed before you previously. they have been presented to Fayette Circuit Court. Mr. Carey obtained a permit for the decks on his property that were constructed. He did not need a permit for uncovering the driveway which was paved and grown through over the years with weeds and plants so that it appeared green. He did not need a permit to do that. But again all that's been presented to court it's there and if there's an issue there that can be brought up to Fayette Circuit Court. The The main thing, though, is I want you to look at number five under my handout to you, and that is the statute. I have printed the statute for you, which is the only way a revocation can be ordered. There's only one way, and it's under KRS 100.32374, and I've put the whole statute there for you to look at. I want you to look at a couple parts of that. It's, as Mr. Todd mentioned, the Administrator Official, which is Director of Planning, shall review all conditional use permits yearly. About seven lines down. If the landowner is, he has to review it, if the landowner is not complying with all the conditions which are listed on the conditional use permit, the administrative official, here our director of planning, shall report the fact in writing to the chairman of the board of adjustment. The report shall state specifically the manner in which the landowner is not complying with the conditions on the conditional use permit, and a copy of that report will be furnished to the landowner at the same time that it is furnished to the chairman of the Board of Adjustment. The Board shall hold a hearing on the report within a reasonable time and a notice of time and place given to the landowner at least one week prior to the hearing. If the Board finds facts alleged are true and that the landowner has taken no steps to fix them before the hearing, then the Board may authorize the administrative official to revoke the permit. but what that says number of things you got to look at what you can do even before you schedule a revocation hearing first the administrative official has to inspect the property second the administrative official has to determine that there is a violation or potential violation or not in compliance third the administrative official has to put a report in writing to the chairman of the Board of Adjustment fourth the copy has to be provided to the landowner at the same time only then only then may ace a revocation hearing even be scheduled that's the fifth part you can schedule a hearing six landowner must have a opportunity to correct the matter and then only if the board finds that there's a violation of conditions and they have not been fixed then the revocation can occur in this case A year ago, there was a complaint made to the administrative official, as I understand, that the conditions were not complied with. At that time, the administrative official determined that there was not enough evidence to support that. When you all had a hearing in June of 2013, you did not make a ruling on that. and you did make a ruling that the zip line had to stop. Property owner disagreed, went to court, court issued an injunction, stop it, and was stopped. Couple things on this. Number one, one of the requirements before you can even schedule a hearing under that statute is a report from your administrative official that there are violations. There is no report. There is no report. second of all if the association which Mr. Todd represents objects to that and thought that the administrative official was in error in deciding that there was no evidence of violations sufficient to present to you under the statute there's a remedy for that the complaining party can appeal that like any decision of the administrative official within 30 days to you 30 days and this is under KRS 100.257 and the other statute is .237 but everybody has a right to appeal any decision of the administrative official but it has to be within 30 days there was a decision not to go forward because of lack of evidence, either, or they should have appealed that if they disagreed within 30 days. Now, somehow that has gotten to court anyway, and there's been a court order that he has to comply with all the provisions of the 2000 permit, and that, so be it. If that's the order, that's the order, but that is in Fayette Circuit Court. What I'm saying to you is that under the statute, which is the only way a revocation hearing can even be scheduled, the prerequisite conditions have not occurred. The statute does not give neighbors or aggrieved neighbors the right to directly petition you for a revocation hearing. There has to be a review process through your staff before a revocation hearing can be scheduled. That occurred a year ago. There was a finding that there wasn't enough evidence to do it. They had the right to appeal in 30 days to you. They did not. That cuts off that right, just as any of your decisions today can be appealed within 30 days to circuit court. If you wait until the 31st day, you're out of luck. That's the statute of limitations. There's a statute of limitations on that, too. And I've got one more minute. You've got one minute in fairness, Mr. Murphy. And I think it's a—I have a concern of precedent, too, and that is can any neighboring property owner petition you directly because they're mad at their neighbor to revoke a prior conditional use hearing? I don't think they can under the statute. I think the statute puts a protection in there, and that means that the report has to come from your administrative official before any hearing is held. Thank you very much. I hope I met nine, ten minutes. Thank you. No, sir, I'm going to go. We're going to follow suit. But I will give you an opportunity, Mr. Todd, and then I'm also going to give an opportunity for the staff to respond as well. He said something to you as a matter of law, which is not correct, and I want to make sure that you ask. It's my understanding that not only were letters sent to the staff complaining, outlining, documenting, but no finding was ever made that there was insufficient evidence for a revocation hearing. I have never received any communication from the staff, or there's no document that says a finding has not been made. They filed their appeal to the circuit court on the NOV, and they also filed an appeal on the 2010 case. And so those matters are before the court. They have now petitioned the Planning Commission for a zone change and the same conditional use permit involving the same structures which are currently erected on the property. And they are trying to circumvent your decisions. And so I think Dick's argument is inaccurate. I'll be fair. It's inaccurate. No findings ever been made. If someone showed me something that says there was a finding, then I'll be happy to consider it. Thank you, Mr. Todd. I'll let you in fairness go, Mr. Murphy, and then we're going to move on. No report has been sent to you by your administrative official, which is a prerequisite to scheduling a hearing. I want to emphasize, though, there's a statement made that we filed a zone change with the identical conditional use permit we had before. That is not true. We have filed a zone change. I came in. I'm representing the applicant on a zone change from the AR zone to the AN zone, much more restrictive zone, requires preservation natural area. We did ask for a conditional use permit for commercial recreational use. 20 acres. The one you had was 200 acres. This is 20 acres. The one you had included cabins. This does not. The one you had included a canoe livery. This does not. The one you had included hiking trails, a fish hatchery, a footbridge over to Clark County, a maintenance building, an agricultural market, off-road vehicles, and none of that is included in what we filed with the Planning Commission. I just want to let you know. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Tide. I'd like to hear from staff. Let me say, there may be other people that have comments here, and let me also say this. We're up here biting our tongue trying to provide the best process that we can, and frankly, this interaction has been very difficult for us to deal with, And I just want to put that out there on the record before I tell you what I'm going to tell you, which is to try to make this as clear as I can as to where we are and what has happened. Because in all honesty, it's not coming out, frankly, from either side here. So, I mean, that's just the best I can say it. And, you know, you all can take it however you'd like. Here's where we are. There are right now two cases pending in Fayette Circuit Court that relate to Boone Creek, as we've all dubbed it. One is the appeal from the denial this board made back in 2012 for the conditional use permit on a 200 or so acre property that included a number of the things that you just heard. That was denied by this board. that was appealed under the statute to Fayette Circuit Court, and that is currently pending in Fayette Circuit Court. It's in front of Judge Ishmael in the 3rd Division. There is a second case pending in Fayette Circuit Court, also in the 3rd Division under Judge Ishmael, by chance. His lucky draw, he gets both of them. And that resulted from a notice of violation that you've heard some information about today. It also includes the injunctive action that this body, the government, pursued and filed. It also involves an appeal of the denial to accept an amended conditional use application by this board in June of 2013. Let me go back on the notice of violation. Back last year in February of 2013, there were numerous complaints made about this site, about things going up, about things relating to the conditional use. Primarily, you know, let's just be frank and put it all out there the way it is, because that's the best way to deal with this stuff, is primarily the zip line was driving those complaints, but there were other complaints mentioned and filed with the Division of Planning. The Division of Planning reviewed those. The Division of Planning notified Mr. Carey and his attorney, Mr. Park. They responded to those. There was a disagreement between your Division of Planning and between their interpretation of what certain terms in the ordinance meant, what certain terms on the 2000 conditional use permit meant or allowed. We said we don't agree with your interpretation. Mr. King issued them on March 8 of 2013 a notice of violation letter saying you are not complying. As is their right to do, they appealed to this board. They did not agree with Mr. King's interpretation or his notice of violation. You all will recall that you all had a hearing about that. You upheld that violation. Later on, again, being reported to us, us also checking through our enforcement division, it became apparent that there were being zip lines or canopy lines or whatever you want to call them, lines that run between trees that people go down. I'm not an expert on this. And that the notice of violation, even though it was being appealed, it was not being followed. We came to you, and you may or may not recall this, but the planning staff, my department, came to this board and said, here's what's going on. We do not think the notice is being followed. Here are your options to enforce that notice. Here are your options based on the complaints we're receiving, the things that we're observing. We talked to you at that time, if you will recall, about whether or not you wanted to revoke the 2000 conditional use permit. We talked to you about whether or not you wanted to go to pursue this as a criminal code violation. We told you we had even talked to the county attorney about that. We told you that we did not think that was a great option. We talked to you about trying to pursue other options in terms of calling them back in front of you all. And we also talked to you about filing an injunction and asking the court to enforce the terms of that violation notice. After that discussion, the decision was made and the option was pursued to address the violation with the injunction. We did that. We filed that injunction with the court. The court set a hearing date. All parties were there. The court allowed Mr. Todd to intervene on behalf of his clients. We had a full two or three, four-hour hearing. I can't remember. It was all afternoon. At the end of that, Judge Ishmael issued an injunction, and he directed that the zip line stop. He directed that the terms of the conditional use permit that was the only conditional use permit on the property right now, the 2000 permit, that it be followed. and he also attached the notice of violation letter that Mr. King had written and wanted compliance with the terms of that letter. Since that time, well, let me also say there's one more action pending, and that would be, again, there's a statutory right for Mr. Carey and his business operation and his attorneys to choose this right under statute. They appealed the decision of the court to issue the injunction to this Court of Appeals. That is pending in the Court of Appeals at this point in time. As an aside, I have no idea how long that may be pending there. They're not known for their quickness. That being said, that's where we are legally. There has been a zone change application filed. It has been through the technical committee. It has been through the subdivision and zoning committees. And if I'm not mistaken, I think it is scheduled on the Planning Commission's docket for February the 27th. Under the statute, there is a provision. this urban county government has opted to utilize that provision for a legislative body to be able, or not a legislative body, a planning commission, or legislative body, whichever one is administering the planning. In our case, it's the commission. To hear a conditional use variance or variance type thing that is attendant to a zone change. It's statutory. they filed their conditional use with that zone change. The conditional use is somewhat similar, but I have told both of these gentlemen sitting here, so it's no surprise to them that I do not believe it is identical. So it went forward. That's where that is. that's the status of everything, that's where it is. If there are complaints that relate to the issues addressed in that injunction, then we're under a court-ordered injunction over that. If there are new complaints that are being alleged that were not addressed addressed when we determined that injunction was the way to proceed. I don't know. I understand that there is floating around a significant list of those. I think it got sent to me sometime late this morning. I let the planning staff speak for themselves, but I don't know that they've had an opportunity to look at those and compare them to what we received before. So that's where we are. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Chris or Jim or Jimmy may want to chime in, but I think it's clear that you have an understanding of where everything is and what happened along the way. The decision to issue the notice of violation that prompted the injunction, there was not a finding that there wasn't evidence because the notice of violation was issued. and it did include some other things besides just the zip lines that we could document when we went down there and our planning folks that do enforcement investigate it. So I also think it is disingenuous to say that this board or this planning staff has not addressed the complaints as they've come forward. I can tell you both personally and from watching these folks sitting up here that they have spent an enormous amount of time responding to complaints, receiving emails, receiving letters, receiving phone calls, sometimes some of which are not very nice, and trying to deal with those. they were addressed with you all when we talked about what was the best route to proceed with to try to to enforce the existing violation notices so if anyone stands up here and tells you i'm i'm i'm trying to not you know i'm not an emotional kind of person i don't really get out of joint but i work with these people all week every week and i've been seeing how hard they're working and how much time it's taking and it frankly just ticks me off that there's any implication that this staff is not responding because they have fully responded at every time and it's taking an immense amount of their time to respond and to deal with this entire situation so i just want to be perfectly clear on that um and you know if they have anything else to say i will let them advise you they may think or know something that i have left out or not thought about Thank you, Ms. Jones. I think our attorney was much more eloquent and more measured than I probably would have been. We will only say we are here to answer any questions that the board may have. Very good. Thank you, Mr. King. Which brings me to, I would like to ask if any of the Board of Adjustment has any questions for Mr. Todd or Mr. Murphy? Or for legal counsel? If the circuit court ordered the Anglers Club to operate, we're going to discuss litigation. Shouldn't we be doing that in closed session? It depends on what you're going to ask me. I mean, if you're going to just ask me. That's why I interrupted it. I understand. If you're going to ask me what the order says, it's a public record. If you're going to ask me strategy or what should we do about this, then, yes, I do think we probably need to have a closed session about that. What I'm concerned about is that we're blocked here by the circuit court's order, but apparently this can move forward in the planning commission. And I'm wondering, the specific question is, if the circuit court ordered the Angler's Club to operate under the 2000, the rules of the 2000, the conditions of the 2000 conditional use, would they be able in the Planning Commission application to enlarge those? Because it seems like the court has ordered things to stabilize for the time being with the 2000 conditional use. It doesn't seem right that they should be able to enlarge those conditions while it's blocked up in court. The injunction and the order of the circuit court went strictly to the enforcement of the notice of violation and following the terms of the conditional use as they applied, you know, the notice of violation addressed things that we thought there was no other conditional use in place. for us to go and seek an injunction on. That's it. And we interpreted that conditional use, and when I say we, I mean the law department, the planning staff, that there were things in there that were being done or operated at the facility at Boone Creek that we did not believe were authorized by that conditional use permit. Now, let me be clear. We weren't saying that that conditional use was being violated in its entirety. There were certain things that we documented that we did not agree with. The first and foremost of those was the zip lines, but there were some other things. And so we pursued that with the injunction. The issue, in my opinion, and I'm going to tell you, I'm sure that there's a disagreement with this. In fact, I know that there is, but this is my opinion and the opinion we've issued in the law department, that the zone change and the conditional use permit that are currently pending is a separate matter. It's going to have the same process that any zone change with an attendant conditional use is going to have. It's going to have a hearing. It's going to have, and in fact right now has a lengthy list of unresolved issues that are going to be put upon it and explored by that body. but it is different than what's in that 2,000 conditional use permit. So that's why one's here, one's here. But what I'm understanding we're being asked to do today is that there are things, or to consider doing is that there are things in that conditional use permit of 2,000 that seem to be being violated, and that's still at this point the only conditional use permit on the table. Let me ask that question in a similar way. If they're to operate that angler's club under those 2,000 conditions, that seems like they shouldn't be altered in the meantime, either up or down. You're not letting us take the conditional use away from them, but you're letting another administrative body enlarge it. And before I answer, I wonder if stopping the zip line, if he didn't stop the zip line, he would have been in contempt of court, right? Yes. And if he's not operating under the 2,000 conditional use, he's also in contempt of court. And we have lots of evidence now from his advertising that he's not operating it under the 2,000 conditions. So is he in contempt of court now? That's the judge's decision. Well, but the judge won't even know about it unless you bring it to their attention. right? That's possible, yes. Okay, so I was wondering if you were going to bring it to their attention. Well, that sounds like, that sounds like. Right, I'm not going there, so unless we go there in closed session. Okay, well, my first question was, can they enlarge this 2,000 conditional use through the Planning Commission path under this court order that says they're to operate it only under the 2,000 conditions. It's a separate application. It's the same piece of property. I understand, and I don't want to get into a debate about that here because that's probably one of the underlying issues, but the opinion has been issued and the matter is going forth at the Planning Commission under the premise it is a separate application and a separate zone change. Can I elaborate on what Tracy, when she says it's a separate application, let's say this a little different that might have more meaning to you. The conditional use request that's pending with the Planning Commission in association with the zone change is not a request to amend the existing conditional use. It's a totally separate application for a totally different conditional use. That's why she described it as being separate. And it truly is separate. It's a different request. Mr. Todd, I'm going to give you just a minute and we'll let Mr. Murphy come back if he would like to and then I think we're going to move on. Okay, fine. I want to address those two points and one of the problems we have here is when you condense us down to 10 minutes we feel like we have to rush through it. I know, I'm trying to be here. Come on Mr. Todd, this is not a hearing and we're giving you, we're being I think very fair to all parties. parties. Okay, I'm not going to do anything. I agree with everything she said, and I agree with her rendition or summarization of all the facts. That's accurate. We do disagree on whether or not this application that was subject to the NOV and what they have submitted before the Planning Commission, they are substantially identical. But that's an issue for another day. My position to you though, on the judge's order, he said that Burgess Carey must comply with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit of 2000. And he's saying that this will remain in effect until it's adjudicated. So what he's saying is you cannot do the things that you were doing for which they went before the court. He doesn't say anything in that order about whether you can hold a revocation hearing. He's not usurping that from you. He's just saying you have to abide by that conditional use permit. You can't do the things that you've been doing for which she sought injunctive relief. And for them to argue to you or say to you, well, you know, you're precluded from a revocation hearing on this conditional use permit by reason of that order is wrong. It's flat wrong. And that's why we're entitled to come before you. These are the same violations that we asserted in 2013. They are the same things we documented. The advertising, the hotel circumstance, the 60-member group was limited. No, it wasn't. They've got one-day memberships, and they're just open to the public. Those are the same things we filed back in 2013, and they're the same things that are occurring today. And that's why we're frustrated. And Jimmy Griggs asked the right question. If they're still doing this, why don't we go back to court? May I ask another question to Mr. Todd? Sure. Mr. Todd, do you agree with Mr. Murphy's summary of the requirements that need to occur for us to be allowed to call for a revocation hearing, in that the staff needs to inspect and find a violation and report it in writing to us? Because that does seem to be what's written down here. The statute says that it's their obligation to inspect annually. Well, we all know they don't inspect annually. They can't. They don't have the staffing or the funding to do that. Well, my question was just that have the right events occurred so that we can take action here? Because I think there's some logic to saying that disgruntled neighbors shouldn't be able to come in and ask for revocation hearings. And I would agree with that, but this is not some disgruntled neighborhood that's walked in here on the whim. This has been a one-and-a-half-year proposition. And we followed, as Mary Diane handed his letter to you the other day, we did exactly what we were told to when we first called and complained. They said file a formal report. We did. We outlined it, gave them the documents, and that was the basis upon which they filed. I'm not denying that. I'm just wondering if they fell down on their duty to report to us that violations had occurred or were they didn't have the evidence and reported that they didn't. No, I'm not critical of them. We gave them the information, they reported it to you. In this instance, you know, should they have gone back and checked it subsequent to the injunction? I would submit to you yes. Or should we start the whole process over and they've got evidence that you've submitted today, should they verify it and then write a report? Okay. I'm an expeditious sort. I want to get to the end, but yes, that would be an appropriate way to do it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Murphy, I want to let you make a comment. And then I'm going to let staff comment, and then I think we're going to make a decision here. Just want to add a couple things. One is that, well, our website does say today the zip line's shut down. Nobody can use it. In the application for the zone change, which is how I got involved to do the zone change, I didn't get involved to come back to see you all on this one. But in the zone change application, which is a change in zone to different zone, ab's an an zone excuse me we have stated that the anglers club would continue to operate as it had under the 2000 plan we are also asking for a conditional use permit to operate the canopy tour there's something separate on that just want to clarify that we're not asking to enlarge the anglers club as part of that zone change or conditional use application the just wanted to say a couple things the staff does as i understand it does inspect conditional use permits annually is required and the zip line the reason the zip line was stopped by injunction is because the judge said it was beyond the scope of the 2000 the year 2000 conditional use permit now if there's something else beyond the scope of the 2,000 conditional use permit, that can be recorded to the judge as well, and just as the zip line was reported to the judge, because the judge has ordered that we comply with the 2,000 conditional use permit. We feel we do. Burgess has offered to show you photographs to show you right now that we're complying. I told him I thought that probably that's not what you're wanting to hear right today, to see more photographs and proof that we can supply that we are meeting. But again, the case that the judge had was, you've got to comply with your 2,000 conditional use permit. The zip line does not comply. If there's something else that doesn't comply, that's also before the judge, because the judge has said, you've got to comply. And again, I feel it's very important to follow the statute. I think the statute is very clear about what the procedure is, that before any hearing can be scheduled, there's got to be some kind of a finding by your staff, by the administrative officer, that there may be violations and that the applicant has not remedied those. So there's a lot more evidence. We've got pictures if you want to see them or anything like that, but I just wanted to give the summary to you on what's going on on this. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I'll ask Mr. King, Ms. Jones, if they have anything to add to that. Your response? I don't know where to begin. If there are allegations that they are operating or new allegations that they are operating in violation of the injunction, which to me is synonymous with operating in violation of the conditional use permit of 2000, we would investigate that. We would look into that. I have not received any such report or allegation. I personally checked the website after the injunction, and what I saw, at least in terms of the website, seemed compliance. If it has been changed or if there is more that's gone on, I haven't seen it. if we did investigate it and did determine that it was in violation my next step would be to confer with counsel on whether the best approach is to come and report to you which is the same thing we did the first time or to move on to the injunction and go back to the court and have the court rule on whether it's in violation or not again that's what we did the first time if you will recall We issued the notice of violation. They appealed it. So until the day of the hearing when you upheld our notice of violation, that was when truly there was determination at the local level or at this level, administrative level, that there was a violation. They didn't comply with it. We came back to you, and if you had chosen the revocation route, we would have prepared the requisite report, which would basically have been the notice of violation and your action upholding it. But again, the decision was made to pursue this in court. And again, if there are new allegations, if someone would submit them to the staff, I've received no letter from Mary Diane Hand if I understood that's what was being said. I understand that the board may have received a communication that was not directed to the staff as well that may make such allegations, have not had a chance to see or review those. Again, we will perform our duties professionally as dictated by the ordinance when such things are presented to us. And again, take the appropriate steps in conjunction with Council. Our bottom line is compliance. That's what we're trying to achieve. If these people, the objectors, send you some information and that's your notice and you verify that, or you don't verify it, if you can't find it on the website after you've seen these, I believe it should be brought to us that it's alleged but not verified. These folks are all lawyered up, and I don't think that we should have to not act because you folks don't find a violation. Well, you know, again, Mr. Griggs, it's difficult. We will try to do these things. Some of these allegations are a little, you know, I don't know. I can only make an allegation. There's a car that comes around a corner and kicks off and goes 50 miles an hour down a 25-mile-an-street in front of my house every morning with mufflers blaring. I know even where that car originates from because I see it in the driveway. Unless the police catch them actually doing it, you know, there's no violation. I think there's a need for you to be the gatekeepers on these conditional use revocations, but we're past the point of needing a gatekeeper. I think we should settle this. And I'd also like to ask the question about if these violations exist and you can verify them or you're suspicious, will you allow us, will you recommend having a revocation hearing? Or are you going to think that we're blocked by the circuit court order? I will confer with counsel and seek counsel's advice as to what is the best avenue. But there's a difference of opinion on that. I've always found it wise to follow our counsel's advice. That's what I would do. Some people would think that this could initiate a whole other lawsuit if we had a revocation hearing and it was successful. But there's going to be a lawsuit either way. If you've got one party that doesn't feel like they're being treated fairly, they're going to initiate a lawsuit. Or the other side will. So really, we need to do something. I feel certain there's going to be a lawsuit or in addition to no matter what you do. I think that's fair, and Mr. Glover said that some time ago. So that's not really our concern. Our concern is trying to gain compliance. And let me say that Mr. King is being as straightforward as he can with you. I know that you all, or I don't know, but it's my understanding that you all received a lot of information that the staff has not received about potential violations that have occurred since the injunction. So the staff, and they do actually do annual monitorings. You all get a report of those. That doesn't mean they go out 20 times a week at one location. That would be correct. There's not staff to do that. But they do annual monitoring reports, and you all have received those in the past. But in terms of receiving complaints that were formally filed for enforcement with this division for zoning compliance, he's telling you he doesn't have them. And, you know, this has all come up in conjunction with the filing of this zone change now. So we have not had an opportunity to evaluate what they are, what's the same as what's in the injunction, what's not the same, what's new, what's different. we've had the staff has had no opportunity to do that so i can't nor would i tell you what my strategy is in this session right here right now but even if i knew i don't think i could i i wouldn't do that but i don't know because we haven't been privy to that information or the complaints or you know there's just mention of a letter from somebody that you know mr king just told me i've not seen. So, you know, but the staff will do what, you know, they were required to do. If there is a written allegation of a violation of the zoning ordinance provided to the staff, we are charged by ordinance to investigate it to the best of our ability, and that's what we will do. That's what we've done in every case. Well, Chris, thank you. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being aggressive, but I really hate that this date that's coming up at the Planning Commission, which could be affected by the revocation of their 2,000 conditional use permit, perhaps. I thought they were related, and I hated that this work was going on in the Planning Commission when it seems like the folks haven't had a fair shake here because of the injunction. Well, again, I don't know how long these violations have been going on, but, I mean, it's been several months I don't know in the range of five or six months since the injunction's been issued. If these violations were going on I don't know where they were but we didn't get them and you know I can't help the timing. I can't help the timing that the zoning process is moving forward as it should under the ordinance and these complaints are now coming to light. There was a six-month time period they could have been addressed, so that's the best I can tell you. Well, you know, everyone thought that it was locked up in circuit court, so the fact that it's coming before the Planning Commission is a big surprise to this board and the neighborhood, and that's what seems unfair. Mr. Griggs, thank you very much. I think we've heard from all parties. I think the decision before this board today, after hearing all parties, is whether or not to hold a revocation hearing. And to do that, we would have to have a motion and a second and a majority to push that or to make that happen. And so I guess at this point in time, obviously there is several ongoing working pieces of the puzzle that are going on right now involving Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals, now the Planning Commission. But what is before us today is whether or not we are going to grant a request to hold a revocation hearing. So I'd like to ask at this point in time if there is a motion to set a revocation hearing regarding Boone Creek Anglers Club. You know, I'd like to ask one more question because I don't want to start something that turns out to be a problem for everyone. And I'd like to ask Mr. Todd if he thinks that initiating a revocation hearing without having these steps performed by the staff would cause it to blow up in everyone's face. I want this action of this board to be legitimate. Mr. Griggs, I don't think it's non-legitimate, and I think you've asked that question of Mr. Todd before. and if you'd like to address that one last time sir I think that's a point that's well taken you want to procedurally about your eyes and cross your teeth and and that's fine our perception was that that they had all these same information and we assumed as the enforcement officer they were keeping tabs on it and observing it I mean it's on the internet that there's no mystery to how we got this information it's all on the web pages and so we assume they were monitoring it that's all that and we're not being critical. I don't want anybody to walk out here and think we're being critical. I have a bunch of people who are genuinely frustrated and who've expressed that to me, so I'm trying to condense and present this back to you. My question is, do you want a revocation hearing or would you rather go through the proper steps if they haven't been done and have a revocation hearing then? I think a revocation hearing is not a presumption of guilt or innocence by anyone. It's just a hearing. And I think we should have a hearing. And I would make a motion that we would have a hearing. I don't want to do it if we haven't done the steps that should precede it. My suggestion is, and I want to do it correctly. I mean, this is not the hearing. The hearing will be if you decide to have it, and that's when you present or presented facts. But if there is some procedural issue that council's not happy with, I want to make sure that that's done appropriately first. And it might take a little while longer, but it shouldn't take a great deal of effort to investigate this same violations have been there for over a year and we want it we want a revocation here we want to be heard and that's what we're asking well then let's do it when you're ready thank you mr todd i'm not going to make a motion mr griggs is not going to make a motion is does anyone else want to make a motion for a revocation hearing I just like to, I want, we've been dealing with this for a long time, and there's a lot of information out there, and it's a lot to process. And it's, I want to do what's right. I want to do what's right here, and lawful, abiding by the law. And I'm with Mr. Griggs. If we could hold a revocation, if I could make a motion, if I could feel comfortable that we were within the law, I would make that today. I would make a motion to hold a revocation hearing. But having had this discussion today, I don't think that we have procedurally we can do that because of the injunction that is currently before the court. I mean, am I interpreting that correctly? Again, I don't know how to answer that because this is my understanding. I understand that the chairman and the board were sent a letter with some information that I got Monday morning from Mr. Todd. I understand that since that time, you all have received a lengthy list of alleged violations that are going on currently out there. That was not sent to me. I have not had time to review it. It was not sent to staff. I don't think they've had time to review it. So I would like to be able, if there are allegations that have not been raised since that injunction was issued that have been ongoing, I think that the staff, it would be most prudent for them to get them, see what they are in full, not some today, some tomorrow, some next week, some next week after that. Whatever it is, let's put it out there and let's see it and let's go and let's investigate it. And then, let me finish, then we can compare what we think is addressed by the judge's injunction to the allegations that are being made, what's not, and advise you appropriately. But we're not in a position to do that today. I just, in all fairness, we are not. Thank you, Mr. So my question is, so, okay, so moving forward from this day and assuming that you get the information that you need and can deal with it, so what time frame are we talking about? Are we talking about a month? Are we talking about two months? How long is this going to take? The complaints are the same ones that are in the file in the NOV case. I mean, they're the same ones. So it's not new evidence. It's just the same evidence that's there. and more recently documented by ongoing occurrences. It's a pattern, a course of conduct. But in all fairness, there were specific things that we went to the judge with. There's always been a number of allegations that has not been one and the same as what our staff has found to be documented, provable, under the ordinance violations. So, yes, and if they're all the same, you might recall that some of those things that were alleged back a year ago were not addressed with you all, or they were addressed with you all, and we told you we could not find, we didn't find the proof or evidence of those violations. We brought to you the ones that we did. So what I'm saying is if you're saying everything that's out there now is the same as it was before, then we've addressed some of that already, and it is in the injunction. But if you're saying now since the injunction this has happened or this is going on, then that may be something different, and we can't assess that until we see it. Well, can we see what you presented to the court? I mean, I don't have a clear understanding beyond the zip line issue. What was taken to the court as a matter of, you know, what? But that's exactly what we would do when we see what these violations are. In other words, we're not going to go back and re-discuss and re-up things that we already looked at and had the court addressed that are there. But if what we had the court addressed is now being violated, then we're going to look at that. But we need to differentiate those out. I mean, in other words, what I'm saying is, let's say, for example, and I'm just making this up completely because this isn't even remotely close to what's going on out there, but I'm afraid to say anything remotely close because someone will bring it back to me later. Let's say they had alleged there was a junkyard out there back in February last year. And we had gone out and investigated that. And it wasn't there. We would not have raised that in the notice of violation, and we would not have raised that with the court in seeking enforcement of that by injunction. If, however, it was out there, we would have put it in the notice of violation. And then the court's order would be addressing what's in that notice of violation. If the court didn't address that and it wasn't something we looked at before, then it's something entirely new, and we need to assess that. If it was something the court addressed and it was part of the injunction hearing, then we need to address that pursuant to that injunction. And that is where we can't tell you where we are right now, but I am sure that we would report that back to you in detail when we had all the information to do it. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. You've got two options. You can go back before the court on a motion to hold in contempt for failure to comply, and all these issues would be a basis, or they have a basis to bring it to you for revocation, because the injunction does not prohibit you from revoking. It only prohibits him from violating the order. Thank you, Mr. Todd. May I just comment, too? As you know, I don't know the nature of the allegations, but there are some things that are just beyond our ability to investigate for various reasons. In other words, who's sleeping out there on any given night and whether they're paying somebody or not, that's a very difficult, if not an impossible thing for staff to investigate. Thank you, Mr. King. Folks, I'd like to go ahead and wrap this board meeting up. Mr. Todd and Mr. Murphy and staff and Board of Adjustment, obviously I don't think the board, there's certainly not a motion for a revocation hearing today. I don't think the board is comfortable scheduling a revocation hearing based on the statutes. We have several working parts that are going on, as have been indicated by all parties. But again, before us today was whether or not we're going to hold a revocation hearing, and we will not be doing that. With that said, I'd like to ask if the board has any other items to present or to be heard at this time. I would like, Mr. Chairman, for the record, to show that I handed Mr. King a letter, a complaint, and I will meet with him next week at his convenience and with my clients and go down through the itemization of each one of the violations and ask them to inspect it. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Todd. Mr. Murphy, one last comment. I would request to be notified of any of this, which we were not last time. I just want to emphasize to you that it's our belief that the Angler's Club is operating in full compliance with the 2000 permit. There's been a lot of talk about violations here and there. There have been no violations established. It is operating the same way it always has, but we'd be happy to cooperate with the staff to look into this because we are confident we are operating in agreement with the 2000. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Is there any other items that the staff would like to be heard at this time? Mr. Glover, our next meeting date is February 28th. Do we have a schedule? Do we have a board of adjustments? Yes. You should have had that sent to you several months ago. Thank you all very much for attending. If there's no further business, I'm going to declare this meeting adjourned. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Before you officially adjourn, I did want to think of one thing. And you can imagine, since we are the staff for this board, we are the staff for the Planning Commission as well and equally attended to both of those boards. It just occurred to me as I sit here that under the statute of limitations imposed on the Planning Commission to hear applications, that this is the last meeting this board will hear or hold until the Planning Commission has a hearing on the zone change and conditional use application which has been filed. That is correct. I only wanted to comment that if this board, as a board, has something they wish, as a board, to communicate to the Planning Commission, This would, unless you called a special meeting, this would probably be your last opportunity. That does not mean that when the Planning Commission hearing on the 27th occurs, it couldn't be postponed. But if the applicant insists on a hearing, there will be a hearing that day. I just wanted to make sure the Board was aware of that. Again, doing our responsibility in informing you of those things. I just wanted to get that on the... Thank you, Mr. King. Ladies and gentlemen, the swing is adjourned.