# Board of Adjustment - June 26, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 26, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3703 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3703?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-06-26 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 11,816 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 June 26, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Barry Stumbo presiding. The board considered 10 agenda items, including variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative matters. Over the course of the meeting, the board took 9 motions and votes and heard 4 public comments. The board approved six applications: a variance to reduce side yard setbacks for Alicia DeBoor and Gormon Collins; a variance for off-site parking for Spartan Pastabilities, LLC; a conditional use permit for an addition to Beaumont Presbyterian Church; a conditional use permit for First United Methodist Church; a conditional use permit for religious assembly by the Amitabha Buddhist Education Society; and a conditional use permit for nursery expansion at Crestwood Christian Church. The board also approved an appointment to the Landscape Review Committee. One application—a conditional use and variance request for a bed and breakfast operation by Ben Afshari—was postponed. Economy Home Improvement withdrew its variance appeal. The board also held an informational item recognizing board members. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 26, 2015: * Barry Stumbo * James Griggs * Janice Meyer * Joan Whitman * Thomas Glover * Kathryn Moore * Larry Forester * Casey Kaucher * Chuck Saylor * Jim Marx * Tracy Jones * Andrea Brown * Bill Sallee * Jimmy Emmons * Tammye McMullen No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **V-2015-42: Variance for Alicia DeBoor & Gormon Collins** [timestamp: 00:05:19] Approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet at 2673 Red Leaf Drive. Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Ms. Whitman. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor: Barry Stumbo, James Griggs, Janice Meyer, Joan Whitman, Thomas Glover, Kathryn Moore, and Larry Forester. Encroachment agreements from LFUCG and appropriate utility companies must be obtained and recorded at the County Clerk's office. **V-2015-43: Variance for Spartan Pastabilities, LLC** [timestamp: 00:17:08] Approval of a variance to increase maximum off-site parking distance from 300 feet to 750 feet at 395 South Limestone Street. Motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Mr. Forester. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. The applicant must provide documentation of parking agreements as a condition to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. **C-2015-36: Conditional Use Permit for Beaumont Presbyterian Church** [timestamp: 00:18:41] Approval of a conditional use permit to construct an addition at 1070 Lane Allen Road. Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Whitman. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. The addition must comply with the submitted application and site plan. A Zoning Compliance Permit and Building Permit must be obtained prior to construction. **C-2015-37: Conditional Use Permit for First United Methodist Church** [timestamp: 00:20:47] Approval of a conditional use permit to establish a church in addition to an existing child care center at 474 Stone Road. Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Ms. Meyer. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. The church must operate according to the submitted application and site plan. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement. Five additional parking spaces shall be provided by the adjacent Kentucky Utilities facility. **C-2015-39: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Crestwood Christian Church** [timestamp: 00:21:54] Approval of an amendment to build an addition expanding nursery and children's ministry areas at 1882 Bellefonte Drive. Motion by Mr. Forster, seconded by Mr. Glover. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. A Zoning Compliance Permit and Building Permit must be obtained prior to construction. **CV-2015-40: Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Ben Afshari** [timestamp: 01:03:15] A conditional use permit and dimensional variance to operate a bed and breakfast at 4950 Jennie Kate Lane. Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Ms. Meyer. Postponed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor of postponement. **C-2015-38: Conditional Use Permit for Amitabha Buddhist Education Society of Kentucky** [timestamp: 01:10:35] Approval of a conditional use permit to occupy an existing building for religious assembly purposes at 920 Tates Creek Road. Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Griggs. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. A revised site plan eliminating proposed parallel parking spaces is required. A minimum 3-foot tall screen hedge or fence must be placed along the western property line. **Approval of Janice Meyer to Landscape Review Committee** [timestamp: 01:12:12] Approval of Janice Meyer as a member of the Landscape Review Committee. Motion by Mr. Forster, seconded by Ms. Whitman. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. **Motion to Enter Closed Session** [timestamp: 01:12:42] Motion to go into closed session pursuant to KRS Chapter 61 to discuss pending litigation. Motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Ms. Whitman. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. ## Public Comment Four members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Bennett Bayer** [timestamp: 00:23:37] expressed opposition to a proposed bed and breakfast on Jenny Kate Lane. He raised concerns about increased traffic, loss of privacy, and the potential for guests to walk through his property. Bayer requested that a fence be reinstalled and asked that conditions be imposed to protect his property. **Christopher Swan** [timestamp: 01:00:31] addressed neighborhood concerns about the bed and breakfast project. He noted that an elderly neighbor does not support the proposal. However, Swan stated his belief that the issues raised can be resolved through communication with the applicant. **John Leininger** [timestamp: 01:02:42], a neighbor, spoke in support of resolving the bed and breakfast concerns. He indicated that he initially had misconceptions about the project but now believes the issue can be worked out through dialogue with the applicant. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 01:04:21] raised questions about parking and site plan details for a Buddhist society project. After the applicant provided clarifications on these matters, Clark indicated her support for the project. ## Appointments Janice Meyer was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee. ## Contested Items **Bed and Breakfast on Jenny Kate Lane** A proposed bed and breakfast establishment on Jenny Kate Lane generated community opposition during the meeting. Neighbors, particularly Bennett Bayer, raised concerns about the potential impacts of the business on the residential area. The specific concerns included traffic congestion, privacy issues for nearby residents, and questions about road maintenance in relation to increased use. Rather than reaching a final decision, the Board chose to postpone action on this matter. This decision was made to allow time for the involved parties to work through their disagreements via dialogue and further discussion before a determination would be made. ## Economy Home Improvement - Withdrawal of Variance Appeal [timestamp: 00:01:29] The variance appeal for Economy Home Improvement to construct a duplex at 524 Lawrence Street was withdrawn by the applicant on June 18, 2015, and was removed from the agenda prior to this meeting. No discussion or debate on this item took place during the meeting. ## Alicia DeBoor & Gormon Collins - Variance to Reduce Side Yard **Case Number:** V-2015-42 The Board considered a variance request from Alicia DeBoor and Gormon Collins to reduce the required side yard setback from 3 feet to 0 feet. [timestamp: 00:02:00] **Key Participants:** - Alicia DeBoor (applicant) - Gormon Collins (applicant) - Ms. Moore - Ms. Whitman **Proposal:** The applicants sought approval to eliminate the side yard setback requirement entirely, which would remove a non-conformity on their property. **Outcome:** The Board approved the variance request. The approval was based on staff recommendation and the applicants' agreement to accept conditions associated with the variance. ## Spartan Pastabilities, LLC - Variance for Off-Site Parking **Identifier:** V-2015-43 The Board considered a variance request from Spartan Pastabilities, LLC to increase the allowable off-site parking distance from 300 feet to 750 feet [timestamp: 00:02:31]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Board members Bruce Simpson, Greg White, Mr. Griggs, Mr. Glover, and Ms. Meyer. **Discussion and Considerations** The Board's deliberation focused on practical enforcement and logistics related to the proposed increase in off-site parking distance. Members examined how the greater distance would function operationally and what measures would be necessary to ensure compliance with the variance conditions. **Outcome** The Board approved the variance request. The approval was granted with staff conditions attached to ensure proper implementation and oversight of the off-site parking arrangement at the increased distance. ## Ben Afshari - Conditional Use and Variance for Bed and Breakfast **Case Number:** CV-2015-40 **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use permit and variance application for a bed and breakfast operation [timestamp: 00:03:04]. The discussion involved applicant Ben Afshari and Board members Bennett Bayer, Mr. Emmons, Mr. Glover, and Ms. Meyer. **Key Concerns** Community opposition to the proposal centered on several issues: - Traffic impacts in the residential area - Privacy concerns for neighboring properties - Road maintenance responsibilities and costs **Outcome** The Board postponed the decision on the conditional use permit and variance. A 30-day continuance was approved to provide time for the applicant to work toward resolution with neighboring property owners and address the concerns raised during the hearing. ## Beaumont Presbyterian Church - Conditional Use for Addition **Identifier:** C-2015-36 **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use permit request for an addition to Beaumont Presbyterian Church. [timestamp: 00:03:40] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Steven White, Ms. Meyer, and Ms. Whitman. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the church addition. The approval included two conditions: - A condition related to construction requirements - A condition related to permits **Nature of Item** This was a discussion item regarding the conditional use permit application for the proposed church addition. ## First United Methodist Church - Conditional Use for Church **Identifier:** C-2015-37 The Board discussed and approved a conditional use permit for First United Methodist Church [timestamp: 00:04:15]. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Foster Ockerman, Mr. Griggs, and Ms. Meyer. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the church addition. The approval included four conditions that the applicant must satisfy. **Conditions of Approval** The conditional use permit was granted with the following requirements: - Permit requirements must be met - Future expansion approval will be required for any additional development **Summary** The Board determined that the conditional use permit for First United Methodist Church's addition was appropriate and granted approval, subject to the specified conditions designed to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and allow for oversight of any future expansion plans. ## Amitabha Buddhist Education Society - Conditional Use for Religious Assembly [timestamp: 01:04:21] The Board considered a conditional use permit application for the Amitabha Buddhist Education Society to operate a religious assembly. Key speakers during the discussion included Chen Chung, Amy Clark, and Mr. Emmons. The Board approved the conditional use permit with four conditions imposed on the applicant: * Parking requirements * Fencing specifications * Lighting standards * Additional conditions related to the operation of the religious assembly The approval was granted contingent upon the applicant's compliance with these four conditions. The conditional use permit allows the organization to conduct religious assembly activities at the proposed location, subject to the Board's specified requirements. ## Crestwood Christian Church - Conditional Use for Nursery Expansion **Identifier:** C-2015-39 The Board considered an amendment to a conditional use permit for a nursery expansion at Crestwood Christian Church [timestamp: 00:04:15]. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved John Carman, Mr. Forster, and Mr. Glover. **Outcome** The Board approved the amendment to the conditional use permit for the nursery expansion. The approval included two conditions: * Permits must be obtained as required * Construction must comply with applicable standards ## Recognition of Board Members The Board formally recognized and expressed gratitude to Kathryn Moore and James Griggs for their service. [timestamp: 01:14:06] Key speakers during this agenda item included Barry Stumbo and Mr. Glover, who led the recognition proceedings. Resolutions were passed in honor of both Kathryn Moore and James Griggs, acknowledging their contributions and service to the Board. The recognition was presented as an informational item, with the Board taking formal action to express its appreciation for their work. ## Appointment to Landscape Review Committee Janice Meyer was formally appointed to the Landscape Review Committee at this meeting [timestamp: 01:12:12]. She was selected to fill the vacancy left by James Griggs. The appointment was discussed by Mr. Forster, Ms. Whitman, and Barry Stumbo. The committee voted to approve Meyer's appointment with unanimous support. The appointment was approved. --- ## Decisions - **V-2015-42** — passed: Approval of variance to reduce required side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet for Alicia DeBoor & Gormon Collins at 2673 Red Leaf Drive - **V-2015-43** — passed: Approval of variance to increase maximum off-site parking distance from 300 feet to 750 feet for Spartan Pastabilities, LLC at 395 South Limestone Street - **C-2015-36** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for Beaumont Presbyterian Church to construct an addition at 1070 Lane Allen Road - **C-2015-37** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for First United Methodist Church to establish a church in addition to an existing child care center at 474 Stone Road - **C-2015-39** — passed: Approval of amendment to conditional use permit for Crestwood Christian Church to build an addition expanding nursery and children’s ministry areas at 1882 Bellefonte Drive - **CV-2015-40** — postponed: Approval of conditional use permit and dimensional variance for Ben Afshari to operate a bed and breakfast at 4950 Jennie Kate Lane - **C-2015-38** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit for Amitabha Buddhist Education Society of Kentucky to occupy an existing building for religious assembly purposes at 920 Tates Creek Road - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Janice Meyer as member of the Landscape Review Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to go into closed session pursuant to KRS Chapter 61 to discuss pending litigation --- ## Full transcript I want to kiss you all alone Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Mr. Images, before I read the agenda, we do have one withdrawal. Is that correct? Item B, 2015-33, Economy Home Improvement. Are there any other withdrawals? Very good. Well, I'm going to go ahead and read the agenda, and obviously we'll hear those cases first that have no opposition, and I would encourage those that do have opposition, if you all could step out in the hallway and try to work those out before your case is called. First case we have is Alicia DeBoer and Gorman Collins. Is the applicant present? Would you raise your hand? Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to Alicia DeBoer and Gorman Collins? All right. Next item is Spartan Pace Stabilities. Is the applicant here? Mr. Simpson in the back. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to Spartan Pace Stabilities? Okay. the third item is has been afshari is the applicant here is there any opposition to this case there is there is opposition all right i would encourage you all to go out in the hallway if there if you all can resolve any any of your differences um we would really appreciate that if you all could could work that out and and have a meeting of the minds we encourage that thank you Beaumont Presbyterian Church the applicant is here is there any opposition to Beaumont Presbyterian Church? okay First United Methodist Church Mr. Ackerman is there any opposition? there is opposition alright Amitabha Buddhist Education Society of Kentucky the applicant is here is there any opposition? is there any opposition to this case i would not characterize myself as an opponent but uh there are a few details i'd like clarified i think i'd like to support it so very strongly so is there opposition or no opposition i really don't know how to express it i would like to see a few details clarified before i give it my support there is opposition you can have a seat please Crestwood Community or Crestwood Christian Church. Is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition to Crestwood Christian Church? No opposition? Oh, I'm sorry. There is opposition? Really? I have questions. Oh, okay. We'll listen to your questions, but you are not opposed. Did you want to talk to the applicant? Would you all mind stepping out and having a chat? We'd appreciate that. Thank you. The first case, Alicia DeBoer and Gorman Collins. Would the applicant please come forward? Please come forward and state your name for the record. Alicia DeBoer. Mr. Boer, are you Mr. Collins? Yes, sir. Mr. Collins, the staff has actually recommended approval subject to one condition. Do you all agree to abide by that condition? Yes, we've already got that settled. Yes, that's a question I need to ask just to make sure that you're supportive of their recommendation. I'd like to ask the staff or the board if they have any questions for the applicant. If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that V-2015-42 Alicia DeVore and Gorman-Collins appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet in order to remove a nonconformity regarding the residence in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 2673 Red Leaf Drive be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the one condition recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Good luck. Thank you. I'd like to take a step back for just a second. I overlooked passage of the minutes of April 24th. They have been emailed to us a week or so prior to advance and would like to ask if there are any changes to the minutes of April 24th. If there are no changes, we'll entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of April 24th. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Myers seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Our next case is Spartan Positibilities. Come forward, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, and we obviously agree with the staff recommendation for approval and agree to be bound by the conditions imposed thereon. That's where you're all approval. Mr. Simpson, there is only one recommendation, and so you agree to abide by that. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions of Mr. Simpson. I've got a couple, if no one else does. Please do. Just the logistics of it, it's a long way away, the parking from the restaurant front door. How will the off-site parking be? How will people know to go there to park? How will that parking be left open for this restaurant? And I just don't see how this can work easily. Well, of course, for more than 60 years, parking for any establishment in the 300 block of South Lyme has been extremely difficult. And people that want to go in those facilities find a way. It's obviously mostly for students. Greg, do you have any, Greg White's the owner, part of the time we're going to have valet services when it's really busy and people will pull their cars up and we'll drive them over and then bring them back and park them in this lot. And the rest of the time, we get a post-a-sign indicating parking is available at the specific address. Are those reserved parking spaces, are they going to be, will people enforce that the only cars that are owned by people in that restaurant are parked there? How do you control this? Well, it's like any other private space for parking. The applicant and the owner of the lot will be responsible for making sure those spaces are available. It's certainly in the applicant's best interest to have his customer spaces not taken up by somebody else. But that's an expense that would be borne by Mr. White. I just, do you want to address that, Greg? If you don't mind, hi, I'm Greg White. From a practical standpoint, obviously the five parking spaces that are required for us to, that are required that we have for the restaurant is not adequate by any stretch of the imagination. It is something that we have to have. We gave up two of those five parking spaces one month ago at this meeting in order to make that area a much safer place, the ones that you back out onto South Limestone there at the corner of South Limestone and Euclid. So that's where we lost two of those. We have been in search of parking spaces all within that area. Many restaurants there have agreements with UK and so forth. Example, Local Taco is one of them. Noodles right next to us has an arrangement with Cane's to get the obligatory three or four or five spaces. It's in our best interest to be able to get as many parking spaces as possible around us, but as you're aware, in that area, there is not much parking dedicated to each of the individual establishments there. Mr. White, excuse me for just a second. Could somebody shut the door? Mr. Salih, could you shut that door out there, please? Here's what my real question is. How is this going to work, not in theory, but practically going to work? Because it seems, I don't want to insult anybody, but it almost seems like a farce, that this is taking care of the letter of the law and it'll never function. And that's what's worrying me. It just seems that the distance is so far removed from the restaurant. There'll be no one at the other end to enforce it. and I think it even could be a bad precedent that we allow this. Well, the purpose of that parking space is primarily for valet parking use. I want customers in the door. It will be enforced because I will have valet parking attendants that will be parking the cars in those spots. So could we make a condition of this that you'll have valet parking? If we do that, then I am forced to have valet parking 100% of the time. Well, we can word it so that it's during the times when it would be. I just want this to work, or I think we should agree that it won't work. I mean, I totally agree. I've got 1.4 million in this. I really want it to work very badly, and I'm going to make sure that we have the adequate parking, that we need to get the people into places where they can park and get into our establishment. Primarily what people do all along that corridor is they park in the metered parking areas there. There are some establishments that have the obligatory parking spaces, but it's not nearly enough. The reason that's a pedestrian corridor is because there are so many pedestrians that are there. It's not like having a restaurant out at Fayette Mall where you really need those parking spaces because everybody is coming via vehicle. Most of the people that will be frequenting this establishment will be the students and the professionals that live and work in that area. I understand that, but your parking is reduced by 75% because we understand that most people are pedestrians. Still, you're required to have this parking, and if it's not effective, how can we support it? I'm fine with what would you request or what would you like to see in terms of the valley parking? Well, valley parking makes sense because then you'd have some enforcement. You would know those spaces are your people. Right. At this point in time, we plan to valet park in those spaces plus an additional 10 that we have acquired on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings from 6 p.m. until it's no longer necessary. I think that's great. Okay. Can we add that as a condition? That is certainly the intent at this point in time. That is what we plan to do. If the board would like us to do that, it would make me feel better about voting to approve it. Yes, that's fine. Thursday through Saturday, 6 p.m. until it's no longer necessary. Thank you. I'm a little uncomfortable with that fine of an intrusion on a man's right to run his business, quite frankly. I think that this is a walking area. It's a high-density area, principally for students who are going to be, for the most part, walking from a campus adjacent to it right across the street. That's what happens in this area. And so the parking requirement, it seems, is the problem. And you've gone to great lengths, I think, to accommodate the requirements of the regulation. So I don't want to add any more restrictions or burdens on your application, quite frankly. That's the way I feel. I know parking is a problem. Parking is a problem for everybody in that area because most people walk. Since most people walk, there's less space for parking and there's more space for walking. So I don't see this as a big impediment. but I think you've you know having parking three blocks away may not work all the time but if that's what you have to do to comply with the requirements then that's what you have to do so that's kind of how I feel I see a couple of nodding heads on the board as well I agree with Mr. Glover I think the problem is going to sort itself out on its own I mean if there's parking there's parking and if there's not there's not Yeah, I would just add, Greg is obviously a very nice person, but he's got a lot at risk, as he indicated, $1.4 million. And he wants to be successful, but imposing a burden of having paying somebody out there to be certain hours, you know, if the business starts to struggle a little bit, that's just a burden at this point he doesn't need. And there's no other business in the whole block that they don't, none of them have sufficient parking. and they haven't had it for 60 years. I grew up in that area. And if you find a place to park or you don't go to that restaurant, and that's all on him. That's all his risk. So I think getting starting out, given what he's doing with putting in the curb that we talked about last time for safety on the pedestrians and the compromise he's made on the pergola, improving the integrity and the potential for success of that whole block of South Lyme, is let's give them the opportunity to get a fair start with adding more restrictions than what we absolutely have to have, and I don't believe we need this one. I would agree with Mr. Glover. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Anybody have any other questions? I personally, I agree with the comments that have been made by the applicant and by Mr. Glover and by Ms. Meyer, And I think Mr. White has done an exemplary job of accommodating our request and has got a significant investment. And it is. I mean, I worked on the campus for many years. Many of us went to school there as well. And it's always an issue. And I would not like to put any condition on that as well and something that I don't think I would support. I'll just add that this is an educational process. My questions were because of the distance and worrying about enforcement. But Tommy makes a good point, and I think it will sort itself out. So that's good enough. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. With that said, if there's no other questions, the board will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve V2015-43 Spartan Pastabilities, appeal for a variance to increase the maximum distance from 300 feet to 750 feet in order to accommodate the off-site parking requirements in the neighborhood business B1 zone at 395 South Limestone Street for the reasons recommended by staff and as we've discussed and subject to the condition suggested by staff. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Forster, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project, Mr. White. Thank you very much. I think the next item we had with no opposition was Beaumont Presbyterian Church. Is the applicant here? Would you please come forward? Please come forward and state your name for the record. Stephen White, the architect for the Beaumont Presbyterian. Mr. White, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those conditions? I was unaware that there were conditions. Is that the ball? Just getting requests. Oh, yeah. Yes, sir. Yes, that's where you have read those conditions and agree to them. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions of the applicant or Mr. White. If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2015-36 Beaumont Presbyterian Church of Lexington, Kentucky, Inc. appeals for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing church in a single-family residential R1C zone at 1070 Lane Allen 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. Ms. Whitman second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Mr. Ockerman, come on up and state your name for the record. I know you had a dissenting vote. We have satisfied her concerns, so there is no opposition. Foster Ockerman, Jr. is counsel for First United Methodist Church. The applicant, we are in agreement with the conditions. The woman who was here, Ms. Miller, lives next door, had some concerns about ours, that the worshiping community would be there, and mistakenly thought we were going to add on to the building in the direction that went towards her bedroom. We satisfied there would be no exterior changes, that we were in fact installing some deadening pads in the room where worshiping will be occurring. and even our lease limits our presence to Sunday mornings. So with those and a willingness to work with her about any concerns that might arise, she withdrew her opposition. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Does any member of the board have any questions? I have the pastor who will be leading services there and another pastor who will be worshiping there with me if there are any questions. Very good. I don't think any member of the board has any questions. If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2015-37, First United Methodist Church, appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a church in addition to an existing child care center in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 474 Stone Road, based on the staff's recommendations of approval and subject to the four conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? I second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project, Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we think there's one other item that may now qualify for abbreviated hearing as well. Would that be Crestwood Christian? It would, sir, yes. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record, please? Good afternoon. My name is John Carman, representing Crestwood Christian Church. Mr. Carman, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions, and obviously you've been able to work out the questions with your opposition, so I'd like to ask if you agree to abide by those conditions. And yes, we have been able to answer a question that really was an opposition, and we do agree with the two conditions and request approval. Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Carman? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C-2015-39 Crestwood Christian Church, a request to amend a conditional use permit to build an addition, expand the nursery and children's ministry area in a single-family R1C zone at 1882 Bellefonte Drive, based on the following reasons and the two conditions per staff. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck. I think we are back to Ben Afshari. Good timing, Mr. Afshari. Would you please state your name for the record? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ben Afshari. Mr. Afshari, the stack is, you actually have an appeals for a conditional use permit, and you also have a request for a variance. The staff has recommended approval on both of them subject to six conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, yes, sir. Okay. There was some opposition to your case. Has that been worked out, or would the... well i think we did work him out but um i'm not sure well if you would have a seat if this gentleman would like to come up and and who's whomever is in opposition would like to to um to state their case and uh i'm bennett bayer i live at 5020 jenny kate lane i am the property that is immediately next door to the subject property if you're standing there looking at the subject property i'm to the right hand side so we have a common boundary i think that you've already gotten enough background regarding jenny kate but a couple different things that i want to just clarify jenny kate lane is a private lane we each have access to use of that lane based upon easements it's it's barely one vehicle-wide and very subject to constant blockage by people coming in and out. You'd be amazed with only five homes up in there how often you meet a car on the other way and you have to find a way to negotiate around each other. I have not been approached by the offshoreies regarding this request for conditional use permit prior to today. I've not talked with them about it. I did not have a chance to express to them the concerns that I have that are shared by my neighbors on Jenny K. First off, we are very concerned about a change in the residential characteristic of the neighborhood. I will have a commercial establishment right next to my property now. South Elkhorn Creek runs right through the middle of our property. We see people that come walking our property regularly now that we have no idea who they are and how they get there. but we have visitors going through our backyard all the time. And the concept of having more people there, and think about this, if they're given the opportunity to have five bedrooms in that house used for occupants, that will double the population of Jenny Kate Lane because there's five homes up inside Jenny Kate, and they will double the number of homes for all practical purposes that are on Jenny Kate. It will increase the traffic. I'm not saying that it can't be worked out, and there are probably some conditions that are imposed that may make this realistic and may make this work. But we haven't had a chance at all to work on this yet. We haven't had a chance to sit down and discuss with the offshore. And I understand that they want to get this ruled upon and approved today. I cannot approve and sanction it today because the conditions that are appropriate and utilized for just a standard conditional use permit will not protect me as a resident of Jenny Kate Lane. Things such as getting the road repaired. There's a section of the road right in front of the offshore's property that is completely torn up. The road has to be improved. We have problems with the road all the time. There's a condition in there that there's going to have to be screening around the parking area. That's going to have to be done. I sent a photograph in to be reviewed. There's got to be very, very strict conditions regarding how parking is going to be done. They've listed that they have a half acre of available parking. That is a grassy hill. That is not paved parking. There's very regularly cars that are parked on the side of the road that, again, become an inconvenience to people trying to come in and out of this lane. and if we can arrive at some agreement on what they're going to do on parking and how they're going to be responsible for patrolling it perhaps that would be a circumstance i do not have a fence between my property and their property we purposely took our fencing down so that the properties would be wide open if they're going to be running a commercial establishment i would like that fence to be reinstalled to protect my property so that people are not going to be wandering along the creek, coming up the creek, thinking it's part of Disney World and they get to come visit my backyard. We have that problem already, and I don't want to increase that. We've got horse farms on Jenny Kate Lane, and we've got to come up with some manner to protect the people that have got some very valuable horse flesh on that property. Potentially this can be resolved. Potentially this can be worked out. But I'm not prepared to agree to this today. I am opposed to it as of today. And I hate to be here saying that because it's my next-door neighbor, and I don't want to cause them any problems. But this is something that needs to be worked out. If you're going to give a conditional use permit that completely changes the character and complex of a residential neighborhood, a private lane where there's five small farms up in there, I think it takes more than just an immediate response that is just based upon the circumstances that are presented today. If we can't table this, then I'm going to ask you to turn it down, please, without some very, very specific conditions that perhaps we can work out. Does anybody have any questions for this gentleman? Well, I'd like to hear from staff about, he mentioned a picture that was sent in. I didn't see. I'm sorry, but I was unaware that there was any pictures or communication. I apologize, but this is the first I've heard of that. i sent a photograph to planning staff and they they acknowledged that they received it earlier this week and i i don't have it with me i can tell you what the photograph is and and let me give you kind of a concept of what we're dealing with there was an original house on jenny kate lane that sits back from jenny kate i'm going to say 30 feet from the edge of the roadway it's down an embankment and then the house sat there and when the al-sharis bought the property they remodeled and in essence built a structure about two and a half times the size of the original house, incorporating it. So now it's about two and a half times the original size. And there are some new driveways that come in off of Jenny K. And the main access to the house is now up in the driveway. But they still park vehicles along Jenny K. They still park vehicles down on the grass. And when they have a lot of people there, there will be vehicles all over the place, and it becomes extremely difficult to get in and out of Jenny K. They also have some monolithic brick structures that are, one of them is used for a mailbox. And that further narrows the road because if you have to try to get off the side of the road to avoid traffic, you can't do it. You can't pull over. Part of the problem also is that Jenny Kate, as it comes to the off-share's property, has a very steep drop, very steep dip. And there is no shoulder. There is nothing on either side of the property, which means you have to wait for a vehicle that's either up on the top of the hill to come all the way down, or they have to wait for you before you can go through the dip and arrive up at the top. And that's right in front of the offshare's property. You add any further confusion to that, you add any further traffic to that, and it's going to further complicate the ability of people coming in and out of Jenny Kate. We have, there are horse trailers that come in and out of Jenny Kate, because as I said, other than my property, all the other properties, and there are small horse farms. And to add further congestion, further confusion, it's going to make it very difficult. If there are service trucks coming in to bring food, bring supplies, do laundry, whatever it is, that will add further confusion. You add five more vehicles at one residence, right at the beginning of Jenny Kate, you're going to create a roadblock where it's going to just be a nuisance for us to try to get in and out. Mr. Veyer, your points are well taken, and what I'd like to do is I'd like to hear from staff, and Jimmy, I assume that staff has made a site visit out there. Can you talk about the parking and so forth? I can. First of all, we did find your letter, the email that was sent in, and we passed it out. I apologize. I didn't see it. Has it got the photograph with it? It did not have the photograph with it, but I do have a presentation, a very quick presentation that I could give the board that kind of has a lot of photos. It's mostly photos of our site visit out to that area. I could go through that short presentation with the board if you wish. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be enlightening, and I'd be more than happy to stay here, and if you have any questions, I'll answer them. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. You can have a seat, if you would. As I mentioned, this is a very quick PowerPoint presentation for the property located at 4950 Jenny Kate Lane. To kind of orient everyone, the most common question that I got whenever this application was first submitted was, where is Jenny Kate Lane? So I wanted to start with the big picture and then kind of zoom in to everybody. The subject property is located about three-quarters of a mile north of Versailles Road and about three-quarters of a mile west of Keeneland's property. It's also in the vicinity of the Bluegrass Airport and Westmoreland subdivision. One of the major roads that goes through that area going north-south is Rosalie Road. and that tees into Bosworth Lane, which comes into the back of Keeneland. So that should give everybody kind of an idea of where the subject property is. Jenny Kate Lane is a private road that comes off of Rosalie Road and serves those six properties. As we zoom in a little bit closer, this request has two components to it. The conditional use for the bed and breakfast and also a dimensional variance for a because anytime in the AR zone that you have a bed and breakfast that is within a mile, the Board of Adjustment has to grant a variance to allow that. And in such case, the regulations say that you need to look at and make sure that the number of bedrooms in the area is not going to have a detrimental effect on the general vicinity. From property line to property line, the subject property is outlined in yellow. The existing bed and breakfast facility is outlined in green. It's now the eighth pole in for many years, approximately 20 years prior. It was the Swan's Nest run by Rosalie Swan, and she says that Rosalie Road is not named after her, and you'll never convince me otherwise that it wasn't. Whenever the staff was looking at it, it is 750 feet property line to property line. But if you look at the driving distance between the two facilities, it's about a half a mile, about 2,300 feet. from this facility to that facility. Another thing that is a major feature of the subject property is the South Elkhorn Creek, and you can see it there. There is a large floodplain on this property. This property is about 12 acres, and you can see how much blue there is on that. Luckily, the way that the bank of the creek goes, most of the floodplain runs on the south side, and the house and the other facilities are up towards Jenny Kate Lane and not in the floodplain. Let me zoom in one more time. And this is once again looking in an aerial photograph from the 2013 aerials. It shows the house, the swimming pool, and the large circular driveway that's on the property. you can see it just happened to be when the picture was taken that there were two cars so that gives you kind of a sense of the scale of how much pavement there is in there. As the staff was reviewing this particular application not only is there a three-car garage in the structure we felt that there was enough pavement on the property that you would be able to park enough cars without the need for requiring any additional pavement for this facility. Looking at some pictures on the ground from this site as we went out and did our site visit, this is looking at the driveway toward the garage. And you can see kind of the two wings of the house. and this is looking up Jenny Kate Lane away from Rosalie Road and the red fence area is the area that is enclosing their outdoor pool. This is a picture standing about at that pool area and you can see in the photograph there's a little red speck and a white trailer. That's a barn that is on the Afshari's property, and that's essentially the corner of their property. Since it was looking back, this is just turning yourself around, looking back down Jenny Kate Lane toward Rosalie Road. and then finally I took a picture looking north toward the 8th pole in. And you can see on this one, because of the trees and the topography, to give you an idea going back to the two properties in perspective, I was standing about where the purple arrow is and taking a picture in that direction. And you can see that there is a house in between this facility or a house or a large barn. I'm not sure which. But there's a structure before you get to the 8th pull-in. And from this photograph, you cannot see it from Jenny Kate Lane. That concludes all my pictures. I have just this standard aerial here. We can go back to any of the slides if need be during this hearing. But we've got that. We can leave that up if you want to use it to refer to. The staff is recommending approval. First, it's appropriate to, it's listed with the conditional use and then the variance. But it's best to look at the variance first. Because if the variance is not granted, then the conditional use would not be allowed. The staff did feel that the variance was justifiable for the subject property. whenever you look at within a one mile radius of the bed and breakfasts there would be a total of 10 bedrooms in this one mile radius and we do not feel that that would be an overburden on the general vicinity for the subject properties this this facility is set back from as far from rosalie road as the other eighth pole in is also taking into account that even though the from property line to property line at 750 feet. The driving distance between the two is still about a half a mile, and the fact that the tree lines and the topography mean that you can't see one facility from the other. We felt that those were unique circumstances that justified granting the variance in order to allow the second bed and breakfast. Jimmy, I don't understand the significance of the relating one to the other. Well, when you look at it's in your staff report. I'm looking at that paragraph and I don't understand it's on page two of the report at the top first paragraph, I think. But I don't, maybe it's just the lack of density of my wetware that I don't understand the significance of relating the 8th pole end to this application. In the AR zone, bed and breakfast facilities are required to be one mile apart from each other. However, unless it says, and the Board of Adjustment can grant a variance to that, and that they have to provide that finding that the number of rooms granted shall not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. In addition, considering such conditional use, the board shall take into consideration the number of bed and breakfast facilities within the general neighborhood of the property being considered for such. And why is that? We're looking at that. Why is there that restriction on limiting the number of bed and breakfasts within a one-mile area of each other? I mean, that's... Bill was here when these regulations were written. I think I know the reason, but I would like to let his experience answer that question. Thanks. The ordinance that set up bed and breakfast uses as conditional uses took six years from start to finish. One of the major issues when the committee was forming these regulations back in the late 80s and early 90s was the density of these uses in the rural area. In the urban area, it wasn't felt to be necessary to place a distance requirement on them. But there was general fear in the community by allowing these for the first time in the rural area that you would have clusters of these uses in certain areas. And so that was the reason why the one-mile separation was enacted. We have had probably a half dozen requests for bed and breakfast in the AR zone since those regulations went into effect probably a little more than 20 years ago. As far as I can remember, this is the first time we've had to deal with the issue of distance between one and another. But Mr. Emmons is correct. That's the real reason he got into the other facility in this staff report. Well, I'm certainly not opposed to bed and breakfast as a concept, even in the AR zone. But we're being asked to grant a variance from that requirement. So what does it matter if it's 750 feet as the crow flies or a quarter mile as you drive? Is that justification for, is that further justification for allowing these to be close together? It is. As we were looking at what are the unique circumstances that would justify granting a variance to the one-mile radius, we did try to take into account the fact, since the provision is to try and prevent the clustering of bed and breakfast facilities, facilities. I believe there was a fear that, you know, a chain motel might come in and try and take advantage of our bed and breakfast. And if you remember at the time, we had a 10-acre minimum lot size rather than a 40-acre minimum lot size. So kind of keep that in mind as you're thinking about those regulations, so much smaller minimum lot sizes. I think the concern was is that you would end up with a chain that came in to get this is my bed and breakfast here bed and breakfast here bed and breakfast here to get that clustering effect the um keeping that in mind the staff really did look at and take to heart what is what would the burden be on the neighborhood would there be an undue burden on this neighborhood if there were two bed and breakfast facilities within a mile of each other. So we started trying to look at what are the specific characteristics of this property in relation to the other property. And the fact that they are much farther apart from a driving distance than it would appear on the minimum variance that's required, the 750 feet. Also, the fact that really you can't see either facility and the fact that neither facility is readily visible from Rosalie Road. All of those kind of came into our decision making and recommending to you that the variance was justified. But what we've done is we, the staff is recommending a clustering of these two with inside a mile of each other and on the same road and off of the same road, Rosalie Road, right? I mean, that's what we're being asked to approve. And I don't necessarily think of these two particular. I think that they're far enough apart that I would not classify these as clustered. And I would agree. I don't think the staff's asking the board to cluster these uses. Okay. So what about Mr. Bayer's concerns about the one-lane road that has no shoulders? We're increasing the density. We're doubling the density of this rural road. Bed and breakfast facilities with limited to a maximum of five bedrooms plus the owner and operator of the facility, those are very low traffic generating uses. You have to think the majority of the time it's on the weekends, and the majority of the time they're not filled to the maximum capacity. I'm sure when Kingland is going, this would be filled at its maximum capacity. But throughout the overall year, we do see a bed and breakfast facility as a very low traffic generating use for the property. I was looking at, and I was feverishly writing down his concerns as he was speaking, and the things that he mentioned about landscaping and fencing and parking on the side of the road, those are all things that are within the purview of the Board of Adjustments Authority should you choose to address those issues with today's conditional use. i don't want to monopolize the question questions but they're very good questions i think the i think the parking would be the number one concern you know i if it were me or if anybody lived on this road i mean having cars parked along the road on a one-lane road with no shoulders would be an impediment. I didn't see any other alternate way in and out of this property. And even if there were, it would certainly be a burden to drive around. Mr. Chairman, I'll take your turn. Mr. Veer, you'll have to hold on for just a second, and we'll give you an opportunity to respond, and we'd like for you to be at the mic. I wasn't so much responding. There is a photograph that shows the parking of the car in the grass, I thought you might want to go up to because it's directly on point with what Mr. Glenn was talking about. Is that the photograph? One of them. There's three of them. That's one of them. Okay. I mean, what could we do to ensure that... Ma'am, folks, you're not supposed to speak from the floor. We'll give you an opportunity to come up to the mic and address the concerns. Ms. Meyer, you've been wanting to ask a question. How far is the subject property from Rosalie Road? It's about 650 feet back, roughly, give or take 10 or 20 feet. But I did measure it, and it was about even with the eighth hole in. Okay. So it's 650 feet from Rosalie Road to the subject property? Yes. Okay. Okay. Could we, as the board, require that parking for this facility be confined to the subject property? Absolutely. I believe that you could require that parking be on the property and not on the street frontage. It gets a little bit trickier. I don't think that you can, the applicants do not own all the way to Rosalie Road, So they're 650 feet back, and I don't know the math of where their property line starts, but that's about you could only control their parking on their frontage. I don't think that you could also control parking for their personal vehicles just as it relates to the bed and breakfast facility that's before you today. You're saying that we can't restrict parking on Jenny Kate Lane because it's a private road. Is that right? I think as a part of this conditional use, you can restrict that they not allow any patrons of the bed and breakfast facility to park along their frontage and park on their property. Let me ask a question. In following up with Mr. Glover and Ms. Meyer and sharing Mr. Bayer's concern, I would not want to see cars park along the side of the road. and looking at the property, looking at the driveway as well. And to your point, Ms. Meyer, it looks like there's ample parking. There's ample parking on the property in that, I mean, you see two automobiles there. You've got a huge three-car garage. You've got plenty of room. I don't know why people would want to park on the street anyway, and that's something I wouldn't be supportive of. And I could probably support this if, in fact, the parking was confined to that circle driveway in the garage area and the paved area. Because I agree, I think it's a concern to put it to cars being on the side of the road. And I'd like to give, if anybody has any other questions for Mr. Emmons, please ask. Because I'd like to afterwards bring up the applicant here to respond. I have one for Mr. Emmons. In your recommendation for the conditional use, one of your reasons is no adverse impacts on the neighborhood are expected as a result of this use. No negative adverse impacts. And the opposition has got a pretty good list, so. Well, and that is not information that we had their concerns at the time of the. the road is maintained by the five homeowners, and now you've got a commercial use on that road, which is going to exasperate the maintenance of the road, that's an adverse impact on the neighborhood because the whole neighborhood has got to share the maintenance on that road that's being more quickly deteriorated by this commercial use. So just for one. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. No other questions? I'd like for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Afshari. You've heard your neighbor's concerns regarding parking and fencing, and I'd like to ask you to respond for your plans. Yes, sir. Actually, the car that you see on the grass is my car, you know, excuse me. And the reason I park in there is because I just run in with my little boy. We take stuff, put it in there, throw it in there, and we come out. Sometimes I just leave it there. there is plenty of space on my driveway for anybody to park. And at one point, Mr. Burr had his children live there with him, and they had girlfriends or their significant other, and they would come in readily, use that driveway, not the driveway, but use the road. And quite often, when other cars would come in, they would come into my driveway and let other cars pass. I am the first house on that road. And so the traffic is going to actually limit to only my house due to this three- or four-bedroom bed and breakfast. And Mr. Burr had concern about people just walking through his property. I've never seen anybody just walking through my property and I don't know where Mr. Bear came up with that however it's possible that people come in and want to use the creek and then they end up to because Mr. Bear has like a dam in there they come to that dam and they want to go through his property to get out of the dam area and I actually had at one point two years ago found a hunter wanting to hunt in my property on the other side. So I had to kind of go talk to them and tell them they can't hunt there with their boat. So I had to tell them to leave. So there are circumstances that are beyond our control when other people come in and without us telling them it is illegal to do this. And we can't use that as an example. The fact is if anybody comes to my bed and breakfast, I will have a signature line in there that they can't just walk around and go to other people's property. But they could walk around in my property if they want. And they could use the creek if they want because you could access it from my property. And also regarding the fence that Mr. Bear brought up. When I moved there, there was no fence. I don't know who took it off. I don't know if Mr. Bear took it off or the previous owner took it off or as a joint venture they took the fence off. I have no problem putting the fence back in. I really don't. But I don't see any reason because we are, you know, this bed and breakfast is going to be so far away from Mr. Bear's house, it's almost like 300, 400 yards away from one another, you know. So, yes, the properties do join together. That's not a problem. and I would guarantee that nobody is going to park on their Jenny Cate Road. It's actually ridiculous. If somebody parks on Jenny Cate Road, there is no space to park on Jenny Cate Road. There's only a road to go in and out of. And regarding the maintenance of that road, I have a little four-wheeler that I used to clean up the driveway and go clean up other people's driveway also and the road as well. And, of course, the last year, my mind was broken, and Mr. Bear was cleaning up the road. And very nice of him, he cleaned up my driveway. And I really appreciate it, by the way. And so I would say that the issues that are coming up are very, to me, resolvable issues, and I do respect Mr. Bear's opinion. Meanwhile, I believe I will not allow my bed and breakfast customers to just walk around into people's properties, but they are welcomed into my own property. That's why I have it in there, so they could enjoy it. Now, if there is any type of concern that the animals that belong to other people, horses, dogs, cats, or whatever that are going to be touched by the people that are going to be my guests. I will tell them don't touch people's animals. And that is just given, that you can't just go out there and feed these horses that belong to somebody else. And there is actually quite a bit of traffic on that little Jenny Kate Lane because from Jenny Kate Lane, you could access a swan's nest that goes through Mr. Chris Swan's property. Okay. So it used to be that way, and we used to see quite a few of the people that stayed in that, but on breakfast, come and walk Jenny Kate Lane because it's a pretty road, and people would walk in there. We had no problem with it. In fact, we had no problem if they came to our property, but some people have a different opinion. And the type of people that do come there are not going to be the style that we want to run on one of our property as well. And if Mr. Bear has come across some people that has bothered him throughout his residency in that location because they were going through his property, that's not really our fault. We could guarantee that nobody is going to really go walk into anybody else's property because they're going to sign up for it when they come in. Mr. Ashwari, let me ask you this, because I think Mr. Behr has also got some very legitimate concerns and obviously has not had a... I mean, we've got issues with road maintenance, with signage, obviously, parking. Would you be opposed to continuing this? I don't... I'm just... I'll let the board weigh in on this, but would you be opposed to continuing this? because you two don't seem to be that far apart, but there are some specifics that I think that could be worked out here in this case. And I'd like to ask if you would be opposed to a continuance for 30 days so you and Mr. Bear can get together and work out some of the issues with the parking and on the property and the signage. And obviously, you know, whether it's a go slow sign or don't pet the animals or come up with some kind of parameters regarding the guests that are there. Because I'm not sure that we're ready to move on this today. Again, I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I think that you seem to get along pretty good as neighbors. I'm not opposed to the bed and breakfast. I'm not opposed to that at all. But I think that there are some issues that could be worked out. And would you be willing to continue this for 30 days and come back to us next month? Mr. Stombo, I think Mr. Bearer and I are going to agree because we are not too far. And just continuing it for another 30 days is just going to make things for me worse. I'm not sure if I say, okay, Mr. Baer, I will do what he wants me to do. That is going to be a reason to continue this instead of trying to resolve this. That would make us feel a lot better, Mr. Ashwari. I think that we would feel a lot more confident going forward with this case if you and Mr. Baer could work out some of these issues, and I would encourage you to consider that. Okay. No problem. Are there other neighbors here? Yes, ma'am. Do you have opposition? I think it's opposition. Sir, if you'd like to say something. Mr. Ashfire, if you could take a seat for just a second and we'll... This is John as well, our other neighbor. I think it's stuff that we can... Sir, say your name for the record, please. Christopher Swan. Mr. Swan? I think it's other stuff that... I think it's stuff we could probably work through pretty easily. Um, one of the neighbors is elderly and she asked me to come down and, um, just say that she was not supportive of it. Um, so I think that's, I think Mr. Afshari probably needs to talk with her as well. Um, you know, I do, we do lease this property directly across the street from him now. Um, so we do have some pretty high dollar horses there. I'm sure that they can put in some language like the other bed and breakfast does that's farm animal activities you guys know the spiel and that they agree not to sue us or whatever if they get bitten or feed my horses peanuts or something very good Mr. Swan, thank you very much Mr. Ashfari, if you could come back up I would really like to I would prefer to continue this to the July meeting, and I'd like for you, and there's another example, working out with the neighbors and having some further communication, working with the staff, because there might be some further conditions that need to be, there will be further conditions as part of this variance and conditional use permit. So, Mr. Ashfari, we would really appreciate if you all would consider, you know, continuing this for 30 days. Let's work it out with the neighbors. Let's work it out with staff. Let's come back here next month and let's get this resolved. Sure. Okay? No problem. Is that amenable to the board? Do you need a motion to that? Yes. I'll move that it be continued for 30 days. We've got a motion to continue for 30 days. Is there a second? I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, before the board votes, there may be one other citizen here wishing to speak on this. That hasn't heard yet. Is there someone else that would like to speak? Sir, did you want to speak? State your name for the record. My name is John Leininger, and I live at 5056 Jenny K., which is the very end of the road. I had prepared to speak. Most of my concerns were covered by Mr. Bayer. There's no need for me to run through them again. And from our conversation with Mr. Afshari in the hallway prior to this, I got a good feeling that this can be worked out. I was under a couple of misconceptions that Ben straightened out for me. And I feel like if we all sit down, this is going to work. I think we'll be able to work it out fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Leninger. We've got a motion to continue this. First of all, anybody else? That's pretty much the whole neighborhood. We have a motion to continue this for 30 days. Do we have a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? What would be that date, Mr. Emmons? It's July 31st. July 31st. We'll see you back here July 31st. and good luck. This is what we like to try to do. We like to see democracy at work and see neighbors' work issues out and come back here and resolve things that are their best. Very good. Mr. Ashfire, it seems like your neighbors are certainly willing to work this out and we'll, again, address this and see if we can't go forward. We will at our next meeting. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I know the Amitabha Buddhist Education Society, I probably did not do a very good job on that. If you'd like to come forward, please. I think that is our last applicant of the day. Would you state your name for the record? Chen Chung. Thank you, sir. The staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. I know that the young lady in the back had some questions and some opposition. Were you all able to work that out? I think so, yeah. Very good. I'd like to ask if she has any questions or concerns. If your questions got answered, state your name for the record. I'm Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road, and thank you for the young. Young lady. I had several concerns, and I believe we've clarified them. It's this big. The applicant, the staff recommends a parking requirement of six to seven spaces on site tied to a maximum, let's call it, 42 seats in the meditation hall. That's the principal assembly. What I would like to clarify is that Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, which were part of the application, also are comprised part of the record because they clarify the applicant's intent to use those as auxiliary spaces. One is called a social room, and then he mentions schools and offices and so on. The issue, it's all about parking. It's always about parking. and 42 seats in the main auditorium needs seven off-site parking, that sounds great. Sounds like no problem. If there were concurrent assemblies of some size rather than just auxiliary uses, that might be a concern. As long as the exhibits make clear that they're not, then that's not a concern. The applicant has clarified with me that he's confident that any need for overflow parking can be comfortably accommodated along Melrose curbside parking. And he even said that he doesn't believe they have any intent of parking along Tate's Creek on the sidewalk and in the median strip. That's been a problem. So that would simply mean that they mean to respect the street cross-sections that are on the consolidated consolidation plat of 2002. And finally, there are a couple of funny things on the site plan. And if you could put up the site plan, that would be great. Thank you. I just happened to notice that there's a curb cut on the site plan at the rear lot line, and the applicant has clarified he just took the plan from somewhere, and he didn't really intend a curb cut there. So it looks as if that isn't a problem either. He is talking about adding flowers and maybe even some large trees, and that would be very welcome. So I guess what mainly needs to be said is this is a very happy ending, and it only is possible because you as the Board of Adjustment in prior years upheld the zoning ordinance and did not enable an enlargement that really was just too much. And I think we should be honored as a neighborhood and delighted to host the first Buddhist society building establishment in the area. So I thank you as a board of adjustment. And with those clarifications, and I think maybe Mr. Chung can say that he is in agreement on all that. I believe he. Well, it seems it appears that that's been a concern. So that's been taken care of. We do like happy endings. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Yeah, and I appreciate it very much. I remember some of you voting and speaking on the earlier ones. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like for the applicant to come back up. Mr. Chair, I've got a question for staff, if that's okay. Yes, Mr. Grace. It's really just a clarification. But, Jimmy, the church building itself is two-story, so it has a full basement under it, I believe. and you're calling it a one-story church building of approximately 1,600 square feet, but I believe it's double that. Thank you. I've not been inside the building. Where do you get your pastries? That used to be the Greek church. I know I look like I get a lot of pastries, but I've never gotten any there. Well, the Greek Orthodox Church had pastry sales out of the basement. There will be no pastry sales, no fun. I'm not worried about that. Thank you very much. Folks, I would like to know how, this being a conditional use, that there will be some review each year so that if their membership increases and parking becomes a problem, it will be dealt with. It won't grow to the point where the Hollywood neighborhood is put through what they were put through for those decades with the Greek Orthodox Church becoming so large. So you do check, Jimmy? It's a minimum of once a year. If issues come up, we check more frequently. I wasn't thinking there would be any need for an abundance of checking, just that if the church grows and grows, you guys do eventually stumble across that. Yes, for sure. Well, and obviously address any complaints from the neighbors. And it appears to me from what we had with the Greek Orthodox Church, and we worked on that for a long period of time, and this seems to be a lot less intensive use than we had previously. And so with that said, if anybody else has any other questions for the applicant, if not, will Chair entertain a motion? Mr. Chair, I move that C-2015-38 Amitabha Buddhist Education Society of Kentucky's appeal for a conditional use permit to occupy an existing building for religious assembly purposes in a single-family residential zone at 920 Tates Creek Road be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Griggs seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I guess Mr. Griggs wanted to get in a minute so make sure he had that second because this is the last one. Yeah, I know. I figured that's the last one. Thank you so much. That was Jimmy. yes thank you you're mostly good luck with the project thank you so much does any other board member have any other thing that they would like to mention at this time do we want to do that now or do we want to uh go ahead and and i know that we have a a recognition of board members and we also have an appointment to the landscape review what is the um what is the protocol completely up to the board at this point you you might want to take the the landscape review committee as that's the most boring of the three well let's go ahead and address that right now um i know miss meyer has uh has agreed to be the board of adjustment uh member representing us on the landscape review committee and so we do need a formal motion to approve miss meyer and um and i would like to ask if uh unless anyone else would like to be on the landscape review committee we approve mr meyer to be on the landscape review committee forrester uh makes a motion to uh to uh recommend miss Ms. Meyer, is there a second? A second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Yes. I'm not going to oppose that, Ms. Meyer. I'd like to go ahead and why don't we go ahead and, Mr. Glover, why don't you read your motion because I'd like to do the recognition afterwards and we can end on a positive note. Mr. Glover. Mr. Chair, I move we go into closed session pursuant to KRS Chapter 61 to discuss pending litigation. Thank you. Mr. Glover, is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman seconds. I'll signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are now in closed session. Thank you. Congratulations. We have two of our board members that are going to be leaving, Catherine Moore and Jimmy Griggs. And so Barbara Rackers did a wonderful job in getting signatures and having these things framed before. And I'd like to go ahead and on record and read this. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington State Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Ms. Catherine Moore, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Moore for her valuable service, having served on the board from July 10, 2007 until June 30, 2015, and whereas Ms. Moore served as the vice chair of the board from October 2010 until the expiration of her term on the Board of Adjustment, filling the unfinished term of Louis Stout as vice chair and being elected to that office by a unanimous vote of her peers, and whereas the members of the Board of Adjustment and staff feel that the service given by Ms. Moore will be greatly missed by this body, and it certainly will. Now, therefore, it be resolved, the members of the Board of Adjustment and staff do hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Moore for her service to this board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County, and we, the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Board of Adjustment and staff, do hereby wish for Ms. Moore much happiness and success and ask that she continue to give her valuable guidance to members of this board, and be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Moore and also spread upon the minute book of this body. And here it is. And Catherine, thank you very much. Thank you very much. You've been such a tremendous asset to this board with your expertise and legalese and candid opinion and honesty. And we just really appreciate it. and we're going to miss you. We're going to miss you a lot. The same could probably be said for Mr. Griggs. Mr. Griggs, you've been a valuable member of this board for a long time, and I'm going to go ahead and read this as well. And whereas we, the members of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. Griggs, and whereas we wish to take the opportunity to recognize Mr. Griggs for his valuable service, having served on this board from June 12, 2003 until June 30, 2015. And whereas Mr. Griggs has served as the board's secretary from July 2006 until expiration of his term, filling the unexpired term of Mr. Peter Brown as secretary and being elected to that office by a unanimous vote of the board of adjustment and his peers. Whereas Mr. Griggs has served as the board's representative on the landscape review committee for the duration of his term on the Board of Adjustment, and whereas the members of the Board of Adjustment and staff feel that the service given by Mr. Griggs will be greatly missed by this body. And now, therefore, it be resolved, the members of the Board of Adjustment and staff do hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Griggs for his service to this board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County, and we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment and staff, I do hereby wish for Mr. Griggs much happiness and success and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to members of this board and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Griggs and also spread among the minutes of this body. I would like to say that Mr. Griggs has been on this board for a long time, and I really admire Mr. Griggs as well. Mr. Griggs is kind of the conscious, the soul of this Board of Adjustment and is always asking a lot of very in-depth and very intelligent questions and is always engaged and is always prepared. He does his homework extremely well. And, Jimmy, you've been a wonderfully dedicated public servant to this community. And we are so pleased and grateful for both of your service and leadership. and you will be missed very, very deeply. And thank you very much for being of service to us. Thank you, everybody. I'd like to ask that our next meeting date, Mr. Glover, will be July 31, 2015. It is noted that Mr. Glover will not be here, and Ms. Meyer will not be here in July and August. I'd like to ask if there's any other questions or comments from the staff, any member of the board. If not, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for your service. We appreciate it. And thank you, Jimmy.