# Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 31, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 31, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3498 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3498?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-10-31 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 5,520 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on October 31, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Barry Stumbo presiding. The board considered six agenda items, including five conditional use permit applications and approval of the 2015 meeting and filing schedule. All six items were approved, with the board taking eight motions and votes throughout the meeting. Three members of the public provided comments during the session. The conditional use permits addressed a range of land uses across different zoning districts. These included a home occupation permit for handicrafts in an R-1D zone, a pawn shop in a B-3 zone, a new ticket office for Keeneland Association in an A-R zone, additional parking for Bharatiya Temple & Cultural Center in an A-R zone, and an expansion of a maintenance building at Idle Hour Country Club in an R-1B zone. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 31, 2014: - Barry Stumbo - Thomas Glover - Kathryn Moore - James Griggs - Larry Forester - Janice Meyer - Joan Whitman - Casey Kaucher - Chuck Saylor - Jim Marx - Tracy Jones - Andrea Brown - Chris King - Jimmy Emmons - Tammye McMullen No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from August 22, 2014** [timestamp: 0:03:13] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Janice Meyer. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. **Approval of Minutes from September 26, 2014** [timestamp: 0:03:45] Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. **C-2014-66: Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (Handicrafts) in R-1D Zone at 1085 Chinoe Road** [timestamp: 0:05:25] Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Janice Meyer. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. The permit is conditioned on operation in accordance with the submitted application and site plan, obtaining all necessary permits including a Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy, compliance with Article 1-11 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding home occupations, and becoming null and void should the appellant no longer reside at the location. **C-2014-67: Conditional Use Permit for Pawn Shop in B-3 Zone at 212 E. New Circle Road** [timestamp: 0:22:29] Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed with 7 votes in favor and 1 abstention. Those voting in favor were Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Kathryn Moore, James Griggs, Larry Forester, Janice Meyer, and Joan Whitman. The permit requires establishment per the submitted application and revised site plan showing at least 18 off-street parking spaces with required landscaping, obtaining necessary permits before construction and reopening, providing landscape buffers along New Circle Road and the northern parking lot edge, ensuring signage compliance with removal of message boards and temporary banners from the existing sign, and becoming null and void should the appellant no longer own the property. **C-2014-68: Conditional Use Permit to Construct New Ticket Office in A-R Zone at 4251 Versailles Road** [timestamp: 0:23:38] Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Thomas Glover. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. The permit requires development per the approved site plan and application with possible modifications during permitting, and obtaining all applicable permits including Building Permit, Zoning Compliance Permit, and Certificate of Occupancy. **C-2014-69: Conditional Use Permit to Construct Additional Parking for Religious Center in A-R Zone at 3050 N. Cleveland Pike** [timestamp: 0:37:39] Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by James Griggs. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. The permit includes ten conditions addressing site plan compliance, permits, traffic engineering approval, parking design, storm water management, landscaping maintenance and specifications, lighting requirements, septic system compliance, and minimum setback requirements. **C-2014-70: Conditional Use Permit to Expand Maintenance Building for Golf Course/Country Club in R-1B Zone at 1815 Richmond Road** [timestamp: 0:39:16] Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. The permit requires construction per the corollary site plan and submitted application, and obtaining necessary permits before constructing the second story. **Approval of 2015 Meeting & Filing Schedule** [timestamp: 0:40:20] Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Thomas Glover. Passed unanimously with no abstentions. ## Public Comment Three members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Janice Meyer** [timestamp: 0:26:16] addressed concerns about the visibility of the proposed parking lot from North Cleveland Pike. She requested that the parking lot be screened with evergreen trees and set back at least 25 feet from the road to preserve the rural character of the area. **James Griggs** [timestamp: 0:31:50] offered specific suggestions regarding parking lot design and screening. He proposed cutting off the corner of the parking lot to ensure compliance with a 25-foot setback requirement from the road and recommended using evergreen trees as a visual barrier to minimize the impact on the surrounding area. **Thomas Glover** [timestamp: 0:17:09] raised questions about Condition 5 on the Merriman Investment Co. case. He questioned the restrictiveness of the original condition and expressed concerns about the precedent and legal implications of allowing the conditional use to run with the land. ## Contested Items The Board addressed two contested matters during this meeting. **Condition 5 on Merriman Investment Co. Case** The Board debated the fifth condition attached to the Merriman Investment Co. case, which would have nullified approval if the appellant no longer owned or operated the property. Board members raised concerns about the condition's impact on corporate governance flexibility and the precedent it would establish. Rather than remove the condition entirely, the Board chose to modify it by removing the "operate" clause, keeping only the ownership requirement. This modification resulted in unanimous approval of the case, with one abstention. **Landscaping and Setback for Bharatiya Temple Parking Lot** The proposed parking lot for Bharatiya Temple generated heated discussion among Board members, who expressed strong concerns about the visibility of the parking area from North Cleveland Pike. The Board determined that the proposed design would not adequately preserve the rural character of the area. To address these concerns, the Board added a new condition requiring a 25-foot setback from North Cleveland Pike and evergreen screening around the parking lot. This additional requirement was intended to minimize the visual impact of the parking facility on the surrounding landscape. ## Lori Koerper – Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (Handicrafts) in R-1D [timestamp: 00:04:54] The applicant sought approval for a conditional use permit to operate a home occupation involving handmade handicrafts in a single-family residential zone (R-1D). **Presentation and Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the permit based on the following findings: - The home occupation would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood - No additional parking would be required for the operation - Adequate public services are available to support the use **Applicant Position** Philip Koerper represented the application and agreed to accept the recommended conditions for the permit. **Outcome** The conditional use permit was approved. The applicant's acceptance of the staff-recommended conditions facilitated the approval process. ## Merryman Investment Co. XIV, LLC – Conditional Use Permit for Pawn Shop in B-3 Z Merryman Investment Co. XIV, LLC requested approval for a conditional use permit to operate a pawn shop in a B-3 (highway service business) zone [timestamp: 0:05:55]. **Staff Recommendation and Conditions** Staff recommended approval of the permit with five conditions: - Parking requirements - Landscaping requirements - Signage requirements - Two additional conditions - A fifth condition restricting transfer of ownership or operation **Key Discussion Points** The primary point of contention during the Board discussion centered on the fifth condition, which restricted both the transfer of ownership and operation of the business. Nick Nicholson and Jimmy Emmons were key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. **Board Action** The Board determined that the restriction on transfer of ownership and operation was too restrictive. The Board modified the fifth condition by removing the "operate" clause, allowing for transfer of operation while maintaining other restrictions. With this modification, the Board approved the conditional use permit for Merryman Investment Co. XIV, LLC to operate the pawn shop in the B-3 zone. ## Keeneland Association, Inc. – Conditional Use Permit for New Ticket Office in A-R Zone Keeneland Association, Inc. requested approval for a conditional use permit to construct a new ticket office on its existing agricultural rural property. [timestamp: 0:23:01] **Presentation and Recommendation** Bruce Simpson presented the application. Staff recommended approval of the permit, citing the site's long-standing use and the minimal impact the new ticket office would have on the surrounding area. **Conditions** The applicant agreed to two conditions as part of the approval: - Compliance with the approved site plan - Acquisition of all necessary permits **Outcome** The conditional use permit was approved. ## Bharatiya Temple & Cultural Center – Conditional Use Permit for Additional Parking in A-R Zone The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2014-69) for the Bharatiya Temple & Cultural Center to expand parking facilities in an A-R Zone [timestamp: 0:24:12]. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the application and recommended approval subject to nine conditions. These conditions addressed stormwater management, landscaping requirements, and access approval for the additional parking expansion. **Key Speakers** John Kingston and Jimmy Emmons participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit with modifications. In addition to the nine staff-recommended conditions, the Board added a new condition requiring a 25-foot setback and evergreen screening along North Cleveland Pike to address screening and buffering concerns for the expanded parking area. **Outcome** The application was approved with the enhanced conditions in place. ## Idle Hour Country Club – Conditional Use Permit to Expand Maintenance Building in R-1B Zone **Case Number:** C-2014-70 Idle Hour Country Club requested conditional use permit approval to expand its maintenance building located in an R-1B single-family residential zone. [timestamp: 0:38:41] **Presentation and Recommendation** Rory Kahly presented the staff analysis and recommendation for approval. Staff determined that the expansion would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that adequate infrastructure existed to support the project. **Outcome** The conditional use permit was approved. The applicant agreed to two conditions as part of the approval: - Construction requirements - Permit acquisition requirements ## 2015 Meeting & Filing Schedule Jimmy Emmons presented the draft 2015 meeting and filing schedule for Board adoption [timestamp: 00:40:20]. The presentation covered the proposed schedule of meetings and filing deadlines for the upcoming year. The Board unanimously approved the 2015 meeting and filing schedule without discussion. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from August 22, 2014 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from September 26, 2014 - **C-2014-66** — passed: Conditional use permit for home occupation (handicrafts) in R-1D zone at 1085 Chinoe Road - **C-2014-67** — passed: Conditional use permit for pawn shop in B-3 zone at 212 E. New Circle Road - **C-2014-68** — passed: Conditional use permit to construct a new ticket office in A-R zone at 4251 Versailles Road - **C-2014-69** — passed: Conditional use permit to construct additional parking for religious center in A-R zone at 3050 N. Cleveland Pike - **C-2014-70** — passed: Conditional use permit to expand maintenance building for golf course/country club in R-1B zone at 1815 Richmond Road - **Motion** — passed: Approval of 2015 Meeting & Filing Schedule --- ## Full transcript And she loves me, God knows she loves me, Kentucky Woman. She gets to know you, she got to own you, Kentucky Woman. I don't want much, but good loves have beneath my feet. Gentle touch From that one girl And life is Sweet and good Ain't no doubt I'm talking about Kentucky woman She gets to know you She goes to own you Kentucky woman I don't want much Good Lord's earth beneath my feet Gentle touch That one girl and life is sweet and good There ain't no doubting I'm talking about Kentucky woman She gets to know you She got to own you Folks, if you'd take a seat, I'd appreciate it. We'd like to welcome you to the October Board of Adjustment meeting. I'd like to go over a few things before we begin. If anybody's got a cell phone, please make sure that you've got it turned off. And we will be swearing in everybody that's going to speak. So who's ever going to make comments at the podium, would you stand up, please, and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I guess, sir. Thank you. You may be seated. I'm going to go ahead and read the agenda and ask if the applicant is present. I don't think we have any opposition, Mr. Emmons, on any of our five cases today, but I'd like to start by Lori Korper. The applicant is present. And is there any opposition? Okay. Merriman Investment Company. Thank you. Is there any opposition? Keelan Association. Any opposition? Ilauer Country Club. Is there any opposition? Did I miss one? oh yes and and the uh and i'm gonna probably not enunciate this properly but the but the bar temple and cultural center i know i didn't do a very good job on that but brahya very good any opposition okay very good um i'd like to go ahead and we have minutes from the uh from the august uh 22nd meeting i think that you all have had an opportunity to look over those and if you if there's not any changes the chair will accept a motion to approve chair I move to approve the minutes of August 22nd thank you mr. Glover is there a second second miss Myers all in favor signify by saying aye any opposed thank Thank you. We also have the September 26th minute meetings. You all have had an opportunity. Those have been in your packet also. Is there any additions or edits? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Chairman, I motion that we approve the minutes from September 26, 2014. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Is there a second? Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Before we begin, before I call the first case, I would like to, we need a resolution or something, Jimmy. These very scary little ghosts that we have here were actually made by Geneva Emmons, Jimmy's daughter. So we appreciate the festiveness of Halloween today. Thank you very much. She wanted to tell you all, happy Halloween. Thank you, sir. Sure. Lori Corper, would you please come up and state your name for the record? Yeah, I'm Phillip Corper, Lori's husband. Mr. Corper, the staff has recommended approval on your conditional use permit subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. I'd like to ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Mr. Corper. if none the chair will entertain a motion mr chair i move that c2014-66 lori corpus appeal for a conditional use permit for home occupation handicrafts in a single family residential r1d zone at 1085 chinoa road council district 5 be approved for the reasons suggested by the staff and subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff thank you miss moore is there a second Second. Ms. Meyer seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck. Thank you. I'd like to call Merriman Investment. Good afternoon, Chairman. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Merriman Investment Company 14, LLC. Mr. Nicholson, the staff has also recommended approval subject to the five conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? We do agree to the first four. I do want to address the fifth condition about possibly removing that. Okay. We are Merriman Investment Company, 14 LLC. As you can tell, there are 13 other entities in the Merriman Investment Company. And the reason why I point that out is it's kind of standard corporate governance at this point, where you have one LLC that will own the building and one LLC that actually operates the fifth condition the way that it is written would prohibit that type of activity we also are in discussion with possibly leasing the operation of the pawn shop to a separate entity entirely and again this would be prohibited on this condition i've talked with the staff and i don't believe there is a true opposition to getting rid of condition five it was being put on there because it was kind of a passed down condition from the last time that this property was before you all. Not surprisingly, since this condition already existed on the property, we now are in talks to purchase the property, and thus we would have to come before you all today in order to essentially get approval for the conditional use permit. We are operating a pawn shop. There already is a pawn shop in operations today, and if we were to basically transfer the ownership of this property. Without this condition, the staff still would actually have to review that request and transfer over the conditional use permit to the new entity. And so we don't feel that there truly is any benefit to the condition. There also is no hardship placed on the staff by removing this condition. There also is precedent. In 2009, as some of you all may recall, just a pawn shop just across the street from us, Dan's Discount, came before you all to request removal of this exact same condition, and for very similar reasons, you all granted the removal of this condition. It is kind of just an extra layer that we don't believe is truly necessary anymore, and quite frankly, is very restrictive in today's corporate governance reality. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I'm sure staff, can address anything if you all have questions for them. Very good. Mr. Nicholson, thanks. Before I ask the board for any comments, Mr. Emmons? I did speak to Mr. Nicholson before this. From the planning staff's perspective, we do not have any opposition to removing condition number five, and I believe there's some reverb coming on here, but we do not have any opposition to removing condition number five. Like he said, this condition was placed on there because the current pawn shop that was approved for there also had this, which is the reason why it does have to come back before you today. Without that condition on there, the staff would have the authority to transfer the right to operate the business subject to this application and the four conditions that are on it. This condition prevents the staff from being able to transfer your approval to a new applicant. The staff, it was placed on there because this site previously had such a null and void condition. Also, in the past, the board has expressed some concern about the number of pawn shops in this general vicinity of New Circle Road. And so that's the reason why we did recommend it. Not so much from our perspective, but doing it from the board's previous actions. If you have any questions for me or if there's any other, the staff would not be opposed to condition number five being deleted or modified as seen appropriate by the board. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Nicholson or Mr. Emmons? Mr. Emmons, are you saying that if this condition were removed, that upon the sale of the business, the staff would have the authority to review what? if a different pawn shop operator came into the staff and asked to put a pawn shop in at this location which has the conditional use on there if condition number five is on here the staff would refer that just transfer of ownership back to the board that would be enough if the if that pawn shop operator wanted to comply with all of these conditions, the first four conditions, and they signed off saying that they are going to comply with it and operate exactly the same as Merriman Investment Company 13 would, the staff would have the authority to transfer your approval to that new applicant. So what I understand you to say is that without this fifth condition, it would transfer the authorization from the board to the staff to to transfer those conditions to a new owner it would keep this use with the land rather than this applicant okay basically it kind of takes out an extra layer if there are no issues the staff could just basically transfer the conditional use or if they had concerns they could also refer it back to the board it just kind of prevents the automatic return to the board if this property said if a new applicant wanted to do something different anything different that then what is in this application in these conditions the staff would refer that back to the board of adjustment we only see it as exactly the conditional use that you are approving today is correct mister nicholson said that if if the staff had issues with a new owner that you could refer to this more is that right i think we certainly can i think we if we feel uncomfortable not to get so as a tear but in one way or another if we were uncomfortable it would be back in front of you and mister nicholson the uh... i'm reading the language in condition number five uh... owner operator i'm reading own or operates property as a disjunctive or as a disjunctive are you reading the same way The way that it is drafted right now, I read that as if basically the applicant does not own the property or he does not operate the property as well, this becomes null and void. So if either one of those are not true, then it becomes null and void immediately. And you're saying that's still restrictive because at some time in the future you may want to sell it as a pawn shop. It's restrictive in the first sense of the way that we usually set up these operations. A single LLC will own the property, and another LLC will actually do the operations of the property. This condition, as written, prohibits that type of basic corporate governance decision. Even if you read it in the disjunctive? In the 2009 case, when Dan's discount came before, that was actually presented to the staff, and they determined that it, basically that that would violate the condition. That's why it came back in 2009. Does Merriman Investment have 14? Other commercial properties that they own. Each one is in a different city. How many in Lexington? They're all in Lexington, is my understanding. So it's kind of like a franchise? But not all pawn shops. Let me stress that. It's just that each commercial building that Merriman Investments own is in a different LLC. Okay. I got you. Okay. Is there any other questions? I have a short one. Where does it say that you could send them before the board if you were uncomfortable with a new owner or a new operator with them agreeing to the four conditions? It would seem that they would consider it to be by right that they could continue. I believe that if we had questions about whether the applicant actually would or would not comply with those four conditions, we could refuse the permit, and then ultimately they could bring an administrative appeal to you on bringing us to task for denying their right to move in. That's why I was saying I wasn't trying to be in one way or another. If we were uncomfortable enough to issue the permit, it would have the opportunity to get back in front of the board. It just depends on whether it would come back as a filing a new application for a conditional use or as an administrative appeal. That's kind of the logical. Are you saying you have some discretion about whether to accept a transfer of this condition? Without this condition in place, yes. I mean, if we remove condition 5, are you saying the staff has some discretion? I believe that we would have to have a reason to question. If the applicant at the table were to say, I agree with everything, but I can't live with number 4, we would say, here's your application, go back to the board. But if a new owner or operator agreed to abide by all four of these conditions, would you all have some discretion to deny it or to refer it to this board? I believe if we had reason to, you know, we're not going to say, you know, just I don't like you, where that's not going to be any kind of reason that we do. But if we had reason to be suspicious that they are not going to comply with these or that what they're asking for doesn't comply, then yes, we would send it back to you. We would say no. Does that, I'm not, it would have to be a really good reason for us to be suspicious of it, I believe. I kind of think that gets to the inherent power of the staff that they would have the ability to refer this to the board under, I believe it's zoning ordinance number eight. that they have that right to send that to the board for further discretion. My concern is if it runs with the land, then this would just be a field day for lawyers. If you wanted to take it away from them for some reason and then put it on our shoulders to take it away from them, they would say it's by right that they have a pawn shop here. And this fifth condition, I've seen it 100 times with conditional uses. There must be some historical value to this condition. And I'm just worried that we're not seeing the big picture here. Well, again, Mr. Griggs, I would point out that there is precedence to remove this condition in this area for this exact use right across the street where Dan's Discount did have it removed. If the board is not inclined to remove it whatsoever, it was. It was before this board. It was 2009-73, conditional use. Well, again, if the board is so inclined to not, or basically to keep the condition, we would request that basically the condition read that the approval shall become null and void should the appellant no longer own the subject property. That basically eliminates the operate aspect, which would basically resolve the conflicting two LLC issues. I'd be more comfortable with that because it doesn't go with the land. I totally understand. Can we, I think there's kind of consensus here. We'd like to see that language added to condition number five. Can we do that, Ms.? You'd like to delete the word operate and leave it as owned, is that what you're saying, or you want to keep the whole thing? Restate that, Mr. Nicholson. Basically to delete part of condition five. So it reads the approval shall become null and void should the appellant no longer own the subject property. You can do that if the board wishes to. Yes. I beg your pardon? If the board wants to do that, you may. Mr. Griggs, you like that? I'm not sure. I'm reading the or own the property or operate the business as being more flexible than owning it and operating it. I don't want to be I don't want to stand in the way of flexibility, but I'm I'm reading that or as giving them more flexibility than not. and staff am I misreading that I'm just curious just just one just one food for thought if you just wanted to end this condition after the word property if there if there were a zoning enforcement issue that we were trying to enforce on this property we would go after the owner of the property the owner of the property on record first and then if they've got a tenant that is doing something bad, then they've got a problem. You know, the owner of the property is who we would see as responsible anyway. If that helps the board on this deliberation. I don't want to beat it to death, but if they decided to sell the property but continued to operate it, this condition would allow them to do that, whereas striking the or operate this business would not. Am I not reading that correctly? We put that very question to the staff before the 2009 conditional use, and they determined that both conditions basically had to be in existence, that they had to own and operate, or else it would be a violation. We agreed with you. Yeah, that's the semantics of what I'm reading it as owning the property or operating the business as giving you the option of doing one or the other and subcontracting out either one. If you want to continue to own the business and not operate it, you can do that under this condition or operate it and sell it to somebody else. That's the way I interpret it. This applicant specifically, the Merriman Investment Company 14 LLC, is only interested in the ownership of the property. it will it does not wish to be the operator that will be a separate LLC okay so with that said mr. Glover the number five the approval shall become null invoice should the pellet no longer own the subject property is that the way this this should read it's acceptable very good well we've got a what I'd like to do is go ahead and then revise the fifth the fifth condition then that shall read this this this approval shall become null invoice should the appellant no longer own the subject property period and strike operate the business on the subject property. I think everyone's in agreement with that. If so, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2014-67, Merriman Investment Companies 14, LLC, their appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a pawn shop at 212 East New Circle Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the five conditions with the last condition modified to lose the last eight words a period after property. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? I second that motion. Mr. Forrester seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'm going to abstain just because of my argument. Thank you. I'm the principal of it. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Keeneland Association. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm here on behalf of Keeneland, and item number four, we agree with the staff recommendation of approval, and we agree to abide by the conditions. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. You've already answered my questions. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Simpson? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. I move to approve C-2014-68 Keeneland Associations, Inc. appeals for a conditional use permit to construct a new ticket office in the agricultural AR zone at 4251 Versailles Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I believe the next is our Temple and Cultural Center. Good afternoon. Would you state your name for the record? John Kingston. Mr. Kingston. Mr. Kingston, the staff has recommended approval subject to nine conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? Yes, they do. Very good. Does any member of the board have a question? I've got a question about the landscaping. Could you please address that for me, please? On the, particularly close to Cleveland Pike. Close to Cleveland Pike. The Article 18 would require the standard vehicular use screening for all parking lots, was it which is essentially a three foot edge and trees every 40 feet because this lot is so large they can also if the perimeter screening and if you'll notice the the trees along Cleveland North Cleveland Pike those are proposed to remain and they're proposed to be protected with this application so if from the field if those trees that are being protected exceed the requirements of article 18 they can be substituted for that you're out there also allowed to kind of normally it's not a normally the lots are so compacted doesn't make a big deal but they are also allowed to cluster their required landscaping in such a way that it's effective so that the also that it would be effective from Winchester Road so it doesn't necessarily big it doesn't necessarily have to be a three-foot hedge that goes around the perimeter of the parking lot although that would meet the requirements of the zone so they have to look at it and as they apply for their permits they have to have their landscaping approved through the division of building inspection as a a part of their landscaping and grading permits and part of that process. They have not requested any type of variance to those minimum requirements, so it would be expected that they would meet them in addition to saving the trees. Well, you know, Cleveland Pike looks pretty canopied, but because of the proximity to this new parking lot to the road, I'd like it to be as hidden as possible, to not be this big parking lot that just sits up close to the road. So I'm interested in making it, having a view, not seeing it as I'm driving down the road. I think the Temple would agree. I think they would agree to do that. Are you suggesting another condition, Ms. Maya? Could I interrupt and ask Jimmy if he can tell us how big these trees are in the vicinity of that corner of the parking lot that gets close to North Cleveland, and if there's any tree protection zone in that area? If you'll give me just a second, I do believe that I have a picture from the site in the file, and I can try and get that. Thank you. first I'll show you the applicant site plan overlaid on an aerial photograph so you can see where the proposed parking is and you are correct it is getting closer to it is getting closer to north cleveland than it had been before at its closest point it would be i think about 10 feet away from the right away which is essentially where the tree line is the it kind of averages at about 25 feet back when it because whenever you take the point the The overall parking lot is about 25 to 30 feet away from the road. I've got an on-site photo from the subject property essentially standing at the building in their back picnic area where they also have like some basketball court. And this is looking toward North Cleveland in the area where the proposed parking lot is. So if you can imagine in this photo, the parking lot will be between that tree line, which is North Cleveland Road, and it will come around and the pedestrian walkways will tie in next to the parking lot and the paved area that is in the foreground of the picture. If you can kind of imagine that. I've got another picture. two other pictures here that kind of as you just kind of doing a 360 on this side as you kind of turn around and the top picture is just looking more towards the Winchester Road and North Cleveland intersection and the bottom one is the tree line as it as it's looking more towards Winchester Road so it is a very thick well mature tree line the applicants proposed site plan says that they are going to preserve that tree line and the staff feels that it condition number one that says that it shall be developed in accordance with that plan we would see that as a condition but it looks to me like they're they're they're trees that drop their leaves and I personally like to see especially that the corner that's closest to to north cleveland you know have some sort of fir trees or something that that doesn't drop their leaves i i just think that you know it's a big old parking lot that it it could be softened with some nice landscaping that's my only um objection or thought about this so i would be willing to i don't know what the other members of the board think but um you know to state we'd like to see some sort of fir trees or coniferous trees that are along that, in the area closest to North Cleveland Pike, kind of in that corner that's closest to that road to North Cleveland. I would agree with that. I'd even go a step further, and if I had all my wishes, you'd take the corner of that parking lot and cut it off so you've got 25 feet or more away from Cleveland Road. It just seems, given the scope of this property, to come up 10 feet away from Cleveland Road is unnecessary. I know you're trying to save your green space, but it seems intrusive for the rural part of the county. Do you have any say-so on the design of the parking lot, sir? Well, there's a lot of property there, and it can be shifted back. You think you could get it 25 feet away from the road and put in some evergreen visual barrier in that vicinity where it's the closest to the road? Well, I'd vote for approval if you could do that. Yes. It'd be a slight reconfiguration there in the corner. basically we just have the same parking just be shifted back that would be very accommodating thank you and I'd like to ask a question about the the the plans that we were shown have of landscaping or something on the perimeter anyway. And so maybe to accommodate the board's concerns about landscaping, some of those, whatever they are, bushes or something could be either closer together, thicker or something or other to screen the parking, this fairly large parking area from North Cleveland Road. And, Jimmy, it looks like you're writing something, so I'm assuming that you're trying to accommodate the sentiments of the board. I am. I'm trying to take what I'm hearing and put it into words. Okay. Mr. Kingston, we'll just take a second and see what Mr. Evans comes up with, because it sounds to me like the board prefers an additional condition with regard to the trees and the 25-foot setback. Thank you. We'll have to turn it as I was writing around the corner on the paper. But just trying to take the boards, just saying that the parking lot shall be at least 25 feet from North Cleveland Road and landscaped with evergreen trees along that frontage. Do we need to put something in there? How far are they going to be apart? I believe that since it's required at one tree for every 40 feet, and we can certainly get to the number of trees and how far apart if we wanted to get that specific. I don't know off the top of my head if I can do that without putting pen to paper, you know, drawing it out. Could we add along the frontage to serve as a screen? absolutely would that and that would that would give direction as they were going for the permitting and also give the flexibility for the applicant and building inspection to approve it subject to that that direction does that need to be added to your to serve as a screen to serve as a screen Can you read that from the beginning? Yes, sir. Mr. Simmons? Actually, let me just read it into the record. Please. You can see why Bill usually does the writing and not me. The parking lot shall be at least 25 feet from North Cleveland Road and be landscaped with evergreen trees along the frontage to serve as a screen. Is that? Is that? Is that? Very good. Mr. Kingston, do you think that that would be, your client will agree to that? I think they will, yes. Very good. I don't think they have any problems. Any other questions of Mr. Kingston and his staff? If not, the board chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve 2014-69. Yes, I requested that. No, the name. Baradia. Baradia Temple and Cultural Centers appeal for a conditional use permit to construct additional parking for the religious center in the agricultural AR zone at 3050 North Cleveland Pike. for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the 10 conditions, the last condition being added by this board with relation to the distance of the parking lot from North Cleveland Pike and Evergreen screening along that route. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Griggs, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? good luck mr kingston thank you i believe our last case is idyll hour country club how you doing mr chairman rory kaylee with ea partners uh on behalf of idyll hour country club mr kaylee the staff has recommended approval subject to um uh subject to the following conditions actually they've got five and six on mine but I see I apologize that's and you you have an older I haven't only have corrected sub force studies and the two conditions you have five and six to buy buy buy those yes they do does the board have any questions if not we'll entertain a motion mr. chair I move that C 2014-70 I'd allow countries clubs appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the maintenance building for the golf course country club and a single-family residential r1b at 1815 richmond road council district 5 be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff thank you miss moore is there a second i second the motion mr forrester second all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed thank you mr kaylee thank you i'd like to ask um if uh the um any board members wish to present anything at this time or if the staff has anything that they would like to share with us the staff does have one request we have passed out the draft 2015 schedule and the staff would request if that's acceptable that the board approve the 2015 schedule Let's put it off until next month. Do we need a motion to approve? You do need a motion to approve and accept the 2015 meeting and filing schedule. Do we have a motion to approve the meeting and filing schedule? I make a motion that we approve the meeting and filing schedule for 2015. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Glover, second. Everyone in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Anything else, Ms. Demmons? The staff would note, just for the record, Mr. Glover, we do have you down, and we will get it correct in the minutes that you abstained on the Merryman investments. Oh, she got it fixed. It showed on the board that you had said nay, and we will make sure it says abstain. Thank you. Thank you. I believe we have some legal issues to discuss. Mr. Chair, I move pursuant to KRS 61810-1C to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. Thank you. Ms. Moore, is there a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We're in closed session.