# Board of Adjustment - November 20, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 20, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3838 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3838?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-11-20 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 7,106 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 November 20, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Barry Stumbo presiding. The board addressed 14 agenda items during the meeting, taking 8 motions and votes and hearing 3 public comments. Key actions included approving the minutes from the previous meeting, approving variance appeals, approving administrative reviews, and approving the 2016 Meeting & Filing Schedule. The board also approved the Landscape Review Committee report and addressed a postponement or withdrawal of scheduled business. One item was deferred for later consideration as Board Items. The meeting included informational reports on attendance, transcript or witness procedures, conditional use appeals, staff holiday wishes, and the next meeting date before adjourning. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 20, 2015: * Barry Stumbo * Thomas Glover * Janice Meyer * Joan Whitman * Chad Needham * Branden Gross * Larry Forester * Casey Kaucher * Thomas Clements * Jim Marx * Tracy Jones * Andrea Brown * Bill Sallee * Jimmy Emmons * Tammye McMullen No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from September 25, 2015** [timestamp: 00:02:16] Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Thomas Glover. Passed unanimously 7-0. All members voted in favor: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Janice Meyer, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, Branden Gross, and Larry Forester. **Approval of Minutes from October 30, 2015** [timestamp: 00:02:50] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 7-0. All members voted in favor: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Janice Meyer, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, Branden Gross, and Larry Forester. **Postponement of A-2015-50: Steve Perry & Lex Properties, LLC** [timestamp: 00:03:57] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Branden Gross. Postponed unanimously 7-0. **V-2015-66: Urban 221, LLC Variance Appeal** [timestamp: 00:17:36] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Janice Meyer. Approved unanimously 7-0. This variance reduced front yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet and ground level open space from 2% to 0% in the B-2A zone. Approval included four conditions addressing development compliance, permit requirements, setback specifications along N. Martin Luther King Boulevard and Corral Street with pedestrian sidewalk requirements, and contingent setback provisions for Wickliffe Street pending Urban County Council designation. **V-2015-67: Marc Guilfoil & Elisabeth Jensen Variance Appeal** [timestamp: 00:19:43] Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Larry Forester. Approved unanimously 7-0. This variance reduced front yard setback from 300 feet to 100 feet in the A-R zone. Approval included three conditions requiring compliance with submitted site plan, obtaining all necessary permits including building permits, and Fayette County Health Department approval of the septic system. **A-2015-65: Andrew Moore Administrative Appeal** [timestamp: 00:22:09] Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Branden Gross. Approved unanimously 7-0. This appeal authorized a change in non-conforming use from video game repair to professional offices in the R-2/H-1 zone. Approval included two conditions requiring compliance with the submitted application and site plan, and obtaining necessary permits including Zoning Compliance Permit, Building Permit, and Certificate of Occupancy. **Adoption of 2016 Meeting and Filing Schedule** [timestamp: 00:51:42] Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Branden Gross. Passed unanimously 7-0. **Appointment of Rory Kahly to Landscape Review Committee** [timestamp: 00:52:50] Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed unanimously 7-0. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, focusing on conditional use permit issues related to 7524 Old Richmond Road. **Dr. Lisa Gannoe** [timestamp: 00:35:39] requested a revocation hearing for a conditional use permit that has remained inactive for years. She argued that the property cannot come into compliance and should be removed from the permit system. Dr. Gannoe cited past complaints, structural concerns, and a lack of enforcement as reasons supporting revocation. **Dr. Charles Martin** [timestamp: 00:41:10] addressed the same property's conditional use permit, stating that the greenhouse cannot legally come into compliance due to zoning restrictions. He argued that the original permit was flawed and called for a revocation hearing to correct what he characterized as a past error. **Mary Diane Hannah** [timestamp: 00:47:14] raised a legal question about conditional use permit transfers. She questioned whether a new company could legally assume a conditional use permit without submitting a new application. Hannah emphasized that conditional uses are not transferable without re-approval. ## Appointments The following appointment was made during this meeting: * **Rory Kahly** was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee. ## Contested Items **Revocation of Conditional Use Permit for 7524 Old Richmond Road** A significant point of contention arose regarding the conditional use permit for the property at 7524 Old Richmond Road. Dr. Lisa Gannoe and Dr. Charles Martin expressed strong opposition to the current handling of the case. Their primary argument was that the property cannot come into compliance with existing requirements and should be removed from consideration. Despite the doctors' vocal opposition, the Board did not reach a final decision on this matter during the meeting. Instead, the Board deferred action on the revocation until December 11, effectively postponing resolution of the dispute. ## Attendance Chairman Barry Stumbo called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers [timestamp: 00:00]. All members present were listed, along with staff and other attendees. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:02:16] The board approved the minutes from two previous meetings: September 25, 2015 and October 30, 2015. Janice Meyer moved to approve the September 25, 2015 minutes, with a second from Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously. Thomas Glover moved to approve the October 30, 2015 minutes, with a second from Larry Forester. This motion also passed unanimously. ## Postponement or Withdrawal of Scheduled Business [timestamp: 00:03:57] A motion was made to postpone agenda item A-2015-50 concerning Steve Perry & Lex Properties, LLC to the December 11, 2015 meeting. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Key participants in this discussion included Jacob Walbourn, Thomas Glover, and Branden Gross. The scheduled business item was postponed without objection, with all members voting in favor of the deferral to the next scheduled meeting in December. ## No Discussion Items [timestamp: 00:04:32] The Board proceeded with abbreviated hearings for cases V-2015-66 and V-2015-67. Jacob Walbourn and Jimmy Emmons were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. The Board confirmed staff recommendations for both cases and noted applicant agreement with the proposed outcomes. No opposition was raised regarding either matter, which allowed the Board to move forward with abbreviated proceedings rather than full hearings. Both cases V-2015-66 and V-2015-67 were approved. ## Transcript or Witnesses [timestamp: 00:04:32] The Chair, Barry Stumbo, presented information regarding the procedural rights available to applicants and objectors during the meeting proceedings. **Key Points Announced:** - Applicants and objectors are entitled to have a transcript prepared at their own expense - Applicants and objectors are entitled to have witnesses sworn **Outcome:** This was an informational presentation regarding procedural rights and options available to participants in the meeting process. ## Variance Appeals The Board considered two variance appeals during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:05:36] **Urban 221, LLC Appeal** The Board reviewed a variance appeal from Urban 221, LLC requesting a reduction in front yard and open space requirements for a property in a downtown business zone. Key speakers on this matter included Jacob Walbourn, Jimmy Emmons, Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, and Joan Whitman. **Marc Guilfoil & Elisabeth Jensen Appeal** The Board also considered a variance appeal from Marc Guilfoil and Elisabeth Jensen seeking a reduction in front yard requirements for a property in an agricultural zone. **Outcome** Both variance appeals were approved with conditions. The Board's decision to grant the variances with conditions indicates that while the applicants' requests to reduce certain zoning requirements were accepted, specific conditions were imposed to address Board concerns and ensure compliance with applicable regulations. ## Conditional Use Appeals [timestamp: 00:05:36] No conditional use appeals were pending at the time of this meeting. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes only. ## Administrative Reviews During the Administrative Reviews portion of the meeting, two cases were addressed by Jacob Walbourn, Jimmy Emmons, and Andrew Moore. **Case A-2015-50** This case was postponed and did not proceed to a decision at this time. **Case A-2015-65** Case A-2015-65 was approved with conditions. The approval followed the applicant's agreement to the proposed conditions and a recommendation from staff in favor of approval. [timestamp: 00:05:36] ## Board Items Mr. Marx provided an update on the 7524 Old Richmond Road conditional use case [timestamp: 00:24:05]. Dr. Lisa Gannoe and Dr. Charles Martin spoke in opposition to revocation of the conditional use permit. However, the Board declined to take action on the matter at this time, deferring the decision to a future meeting. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred. ## Landscape Review Committee The committee addressed the expiration of Ms. Karen Angelucci's term on the Landscape Review Committee, which was set to expire on November 30. [timestamp: 00:52:13] **Key Speakers** - Bill Sallee - Janice Meyer **Action** Mr. Rory Kahly has agreed to serve as Ms. Angelucci's replacement on the committee. **Outcome** The appointment was approved. ## 2016 Meeting & Filing Schedule The draft 2016 Meeting and Filing Schedule was presented to the board for consideration [timestamp: 00:51:42]. Bill Sallee presented the schedule to the assembled members. Following the presentation, Janice Meyer moved to adopt the 2016 Meeting and Filing Schedule, and Branden Gross seconded the motion. The schedule was subsequently approved by the board. ## Staff Holiday Wishes During this agenda item, staff members extended holiday greetings to the Board. Bill Sallee, Jimmy Emmons, and Tammye McMullen wished the Board a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday. [timestamp: 00:53:24] This was an informational presentation with no action items or decisions required. ## Next Meeting Date The next meeting was announced to be held on Friday, December 11, 2015. [timestamp: 00:54:04] Barry Stumbo provided this informational announcement to the body. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Barry Stumbo after all business had been completed [timestamp: 00:54:04]. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from September 25, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from October 30, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of A-2015-50: Steve Perry & Lex Properties, LLC - **V-2015-66** — passed (7-0): Approval of variance appeal for Urban 221, LLC to reduce front yard from 10 ft to 0 ft and ground level open space from 2% to 0% in B-2A zone - **V-2015-67** — passed (7-0): Approval of variance appeal for Marc Guilfoil & Elisabeth Jensen to reduce front yard from 300 ft to 100 ft in A-R zone - **A-2015-65** — passed (7-0): Approval of administrative appeal by Andrew Moore to change non-conforming use from video game repair to professional offices in R-2/H-1 zone - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Adoption of 2016 Meeting and Filing Schedule - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Appointment of Rory Kahly to Landscape Review Committee --- ## Full transcript All others above So worth the yearning for So swell to keep every home fire burning for We'd be so grand at the game So happy together that it does seem a shame That you can't see your future with me Cause you'd be, oh, so easy to love Ladies and gentlemen, if I could have your attention, please. I'd like to welcome you to the November Board of Adjustment meeting. I'd like to go ahead and give a couple ground rules, if I could. If you've got a cell phone, would you please turn it off? and if you do need to take a phone call, please do so out in the lobby. I'd like to, I'd like everyone that is going to speak today, would you stand up and raise your right hand, please? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You can have a seat. Before I read the agenda, I think that we've got some minutes that we need to approve. I know that you all have had an opportunity to look at the September 25th Board of Adjustment Minutes. I'd like to know if there are any changes, additions. If not, that's here to entertain a motion. I move we accept the September Minutes. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Glover. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I think we also have the minutes from the October meeting. I think you all too have had an opportunity to review those. Are there any additions or deletions? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes in October. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I second. Mr. Forrester, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I'd like to ask, before I sound the agenda, Mr. Emmons, are there any postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Walburn's coming up. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I would like to bring your attention in Section E on page 3 of your agenda. Excuse me, would you state your name for the record? I'm sorry, Jacob Walburn on behalf of Steve Perry. Under Section E, Item 1 on page 3 of your agenda, this is an administrative review for Steve Perry and Lex Properties. I'm new counsel for Mr. Perry, still getting brought up to speed, and we've been working with LFUCG staff, have scheduled a meeting after the holiday that we think may resolve the need to have this hearing, and therefore would request a one-month postponement with the goal of eliminating the need for the hearing. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak to this? Is there any questions from the board? If not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone for 30 days. Mr. Chairman, our next scheduled hearing is Friday, December 11th, not quite 30 days. Mr. Walton, will you be prepared December 11th? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm going to postpone it to the December 11th Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone A-2015-50 to the December meeting. Thank you, Mr. Glebert. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Mr. Gross. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? You got it. Thanks. Hope you get it worked out. As do we. I'd like to go ahead and sound the agenda and ask if the applicant's present. And if there's anyone in opposition, we always like for the applicant in any opposition to try to go and work out their differences before we call them up. I'd like to ask item number one, Urban 221. Is the applicant here? They are. Thank you. Is there any opposition to Urban 221? No opposition? All right. Mark Gilfool and Elizabeth Jensen, applicants are present. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition? Okay. Steve Perry and Lex Properties got postponed. We have an administrative appeal. Andrew Moore is the applicant present. Mr. Moore, is there any opposition to that? And I understand that we have a board item that we'll be taking up after the agenda is over. I'd like to go ahead and call the first case with no opposition, Urban 221. Would you please come forward and, again, state your name for the record? Mr. Chairman, as he's coming forward, the staff has received two letters of support. I'm going to pass copies of that out now. Mr. Walbert, give us just a second. Let Mr. Emmons pass out. Thank you. Thank you. If the board has had an opportunity to look at those, both of them in support, you may proceed, Mr. Walburn. I will mention that obviously the staff has recommended approval subject to five conditions. Does your client agree to abide by those five conditions? Largely, yes. We have one slight tweak we'd like you to consider to the fifth condition. Mr. Eames just put it on the overhead for us. Okay. If I could give you just a little bit of background on this project, this is a development that's going to occur at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Corral Street, the current site of the Columbia Gas Building. It's proposed to be approximately 150-unit residential development at four stories of apartments over one story of parking. And it's a development that's geared towards young professionals. The idea is that it is pedestrian, bicycle, pet-friendly development. It's being developed by the Calgill family, who's here today, in support of this application. You've also seen our letters of support from our immediate neighbors, Sayers School and Central Christian Church. We are appreciative of the staff's work. We've worked very close with staff to present an approval proposal. We are pleased to be able to withdraw the open space variance as recommended by staff. We will meet that without the need for a variance. We agree to the conditions that staff has proposed with one minor exception. Staff's proposed condition would, a big component of this development, is incumbent upon the Urban County Council designating Wycliffe, which is to the north of Corral, as a one-way street. Obviously, that requires council action. The staff condition that's been proposed would void the variance we're seeking to obtain today in the event that Council fails to act. However, in order to have this development go forward, we also required Planning Commission approval of a development plan, which we received yesterday. In the event that Council does not designate Wycliffe as a one-way street, we will be required to go back to the Planning Commission and present a new development plan. So we would propose the condition that's on your screen, which simply vests in the Planning Commission the ability to reevaluate the setback should we need to amend our plan at a later date because Council did not make Wycliffe one way. The benefit to us is very simple. We don't have to run a parallel process, and it avoids the possibility of inconsistent results. If you approve the variance we're seeking today, we're at the absolute maximum. Any change would necessarily pull us back. to give a larger setback. So we would ask that you would consider this as condition five, otherwise are in complete agreement with the staff. Thank you. Mr. Evans, I'd like for you to comment, if you would. First and foremost, I want to say I do not think that this needs an abbreviated, I believe that this can still be an abbreviated hearing. The staff and the applicant are 99% in agreement on this one item. Uh, we would, the staff would prefer, uh, condition number five as we had recommended it. Uh, however, we, uh, we do find that the, uh, proposed, uh, the proposed replacement number five proposed by the applicant would also be acceptable. The difference being is that condition number five, as the staff has presented it, is a more conservative and puts more power, keeps more power with the Board of Adjustment. And as the applicants are proposing it, you would go ahead and grant your blessing today and then put the final say-so with the Planning Commission. So it's really the Board's comfort level today. i believe this is one of those cases where you cannot make a wrong decision between the two the staff's proposed one is more conservative than the applicants mr glover would it be a wrong decision for us to make a decision i mean i mean is this premature because it requires uh further action by the planning commission no sir This is a complicated infill project where they're taking up an entire block of properties. And this is one where, as proposed, it needs council, planning commission, and board of adjustment action. The substance of it is more important than the order that you get those approvals in. And if I may, from our perspective, the next step in our process would be to engage in building design in earnest. That's why we're here in front of you today, to understand the strictures of what we can do. So obtaining your approval today allows us to move forward with that process while we also engage the council on this other matter. And I would like to add that at yesterday's Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission did provisionally approve the development plan for this. They approved it with a set of conditions as the Planning Commission typically does. It's really, at this point, the board's comfort level. Explain the difference between the two. Somebody explain the difference. My understanding is that the condition that staff has imposed, we're seeking both a front yard and a side yard variance. If Wycliffe is not one way, and just in full disclosure, the issue is with site triangle. Wycliffe is a two-way street right now. If it becomes a one-way street, we don't have the site triangle concern on that corner of the building. If it remains two-way traffic, we're going to have to rein the building in a little bit to accommodate site triangle. The Planning Commission was also fully briefed on that as well. And the condition they imposed was, if Wycliffe does not become one way, as we're advocating and believe that it will, we're going to have to come in and present an amended development plan because the footprint of the building will change. The condition we're proposing simply says, if we have to go through that process, we'll also let them address the side yard setback. The condition that staff is proposing, we'd still have to do that, but we'd also have to come back here and reapply for that side yard variance, because your approval today, presuming you give it, would be voided. So we're simply hoping for a unified process where we don't have the prospect of inconsistent results and having to go through this process again. I concur with Jimmy. I think we're 99% in agreement. From my client's perspective, it's simply ease of the process. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. Anybody else have any other questions? I, for one, would like, I don't have a problem with inserting this as item number five. In fact, if we're there already, if it would save you and your client from coming back before the Board of Adjustment, that would be fine with me. I think that would be acceptable. Jimmy, is that correct? if the Planning Commission or if the Council doesn't approve the change to one way, do they have to come back? They would have to come back to the Planning Commission, but not to the Board of Adjustment if you adopt the replacement number five as proposed. And ask the Planning Commission what? I mean, I realize this is all contingent on... It would really get into the design of exactly where the building would be because logistically, if you approve it today, you would be approving it to zero. So then the final setback of where the building would be would not be determined by the board, but be determined by the Planning Commission and their approval of the development plan. So any safety concerns would be addressed by the Planning Commission at that time? Absolutely. The site triangle is that section of our zoning ordinance is independent. And there's just no way around it. Part of the reason why the staff's recommendation is more conservative is because the thought process that went into recommending approval of that one particular variance was under the assumption that the council would do it. That's the reason why we wrote a restrictive condition. What are the odds that the council won't approve the change to one way? It's Council 50-50. Thanks a lot. We think we'd be able to. Wycliffe is a one-block street. It goes from MLK to Spruce. If my clients didn't drive on it, I'm not sure it would have traffic. It's very lightly traveled. It's 16 feet of pavement. Staff and I, off the record, have been calling it either a very small street or a very big alley, depending on how you want to look at it. It's a very lightly traveled street. We're obviously not presuming what council would do, but very optimistic. and we did we did go through all of that in our staff report and and all of that part of our thought process so very good so this would save them from going back before the planning commission which you know which yeah i i don't if we can streamline one less meeting i think that'd be that'd be government working a little bit more efficiently unless there's any major opposition to changing the condition number five, I'd like to go ahead and ask if, first of all, does any member of the board have any other questions for the applicant or for staff? If not, if you would like, if somebody would like to go ahead and make a motion, the board will hear. Mr. Glover. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the 2015-66 Urban 221 LLC appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 10 feet to 0 feet and reduce the ground level open space requirement from 2% to 0% in a downtown frame business B2 zone. at 211 and 221 Corral Street, 166, 170, 174, 178, 180, North Martin Luther King, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220 Wycliffe Street, and the former Barclays Street right-of-way. Let's see if I can phrase this correctly. with the for the reasons recommended by staff and replacing condition number five sorry yes replacing condition five with the applicant's proposed condition five how's that i just have a question do we do we uh make note of the withdrawal of the ground floor open space variance in this motion jimmy since it's a withdrawal we don't have to vote on that once it's withdrawn which the applicant has done you don't need to vote on it you can just note that for the record that it was withdrawn very good thank you i'll second that motion mr glover makes a motion and uh miss meyer seconds all in favor signify by saying aye aye Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next item, Mark Guilfoyle and Elizabeth Jensen, will you all please come up to the podium and state your name for the record, please? Elizabeth Jensen. Mark Guilfoyle. Staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you all agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Yes, sir. we've actually already had the fayette county health department out and they've done perk tests and found three potential places that we can do the septic system at that location okay i know that there's some unusual circumstances with the topography of the of the uh of the property with stack of staff has obviously recommended approval um after a significant study and i'd like to ask if any member of the board has a question for the applicant if not the chair will entertain a motion mr. chair i move we approve the 2015-67 mark gilfoyles and elizabeth jensen's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 300 feet to 100 feet in an agricultural rural zone at 1861 evan evans hills road evans mill road no it's actually evans mill mill road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions. We've got a motion by Ms. Myers. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Forrester, seconds. I'll signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. I believe our next item is Andrew Moore. Would the applicant please come forward, state their name for the record? The staff has received one letter of support. I'll pass that out and also I would like to note our the computer system is running very slow So if what you're seeing up on the screen isn't matching what you're doing, it's still being recorded. It's okay behind flagging Thank you give us just a second. Mr. Moore and we'll let let Mr. Emmons pass this out and we'll Thank you. The staff has actually recommended approval of your administrative appeal subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes. Does the staff have any, or the board have any questions for Mr. Moore? If not, Chair will entertain a motion. Could somebody close that door out there, please, Mr. Saleh? I'd appreciate it. Mr. Chair, our motion we approve. A-2015-65 Andrew Moore, an administrative appeal to change one legal non-conforming use repair of video games to another non-conforming use professional offices. Any two-family residential historic district overlay R2 H1 zone at 427 South Mill Street, based on the following reasons provided by staff. and the two conditions thank you mr forrester we've got a motion mr gross second all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed good luck mr moore thank you thank you dr martin for closing that door um i think that uh the next item that we've got i know that there is a board item that needs to be presented at this time and um i believe mr marks you have the floor Thank you. Thank you. Before you get started, this is the all Richmond Road plant and commercial greenhouse thing that we heard part of last time. I recused from the last consideration of this. I'm going to recuse again. I'm going to stay in lesson if that's appropriate. If it's not, I'll leave. But I'm not going to be a voting member or any vote taken on this. Micah Group was a former client of mine, and I got to recuse. And I would be doing the same, recusing myself as well. I guess, should it be better if I step out? It's up to you. you can stay but you can't you really shouldn't comment and obviously can't vote do you want to stay you want to i don't care whatever what's what's is it what's the appropriate thing to do should we step out or what's what's the traditional traditionally people step out okay That's the original. Okay. Okay, here we go. Here we go. This is the original. Mr. Gross. Right there, here we go. Two more. Mr. Marks, give us just a second. Let us digest a little bit of this before you begin. Thank you. Thank you. so Okay. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon. This of course relates to a conditional use that was approved over nine years ago in 2006 by this board for a plant nursery and commercial greenhouse at 7524 Old Richmond Road. Since then, the facility has been inspected at least once a year through 2014. The inspection in 2007 indicated the facility was under construction. Every investigation since then, each year, indicated that it was out of business. So essentially for the bulk of that time, there just hasn't been any activity business-wise on the site. It's been vacant, even though the greenhouse building was constructed. During that entire time period through 2014, we did not receive any zoning compliance complaints about the property or the building. The first official complaint that we got of record was October 7th of this year. That very same day, we had a zoning enforcement officer go to the site, and he did confirm that a new business under the name of Lawns by Lichtfeld had indeed occupied the property. We can't really say to what extent they were doing business, but they did occupy the property and were doing various things. Without the benefit of a certificate of occupancy having been issued by a building inspection, So that was a confirmed violation. We issued a notice of violation to the property owner the very next day, informing them that if they indeed intend to have a new company come in and basically take over the conditional use, that they had to comply with the ten conditions that were adopted by the board when it was originally approved in 2006. The deadline for compliance was December 1st of 2015. For a short time, that property was under lease to this company, Lawns by Lichtefeld, and we met with Jeremy Lichtefeld, the owner of that property, shortly after the October 30th hearing where this issue came up briefly last month. At that time, he indicated that they were committed to moving forward, trying to get into compliance, because they wanted to stay there. But as of yesterday morning, when I talked to Mr. Lichtefeld to get the most up-to-date information, he indicated to me that they had terminated the lease and had already vacated the property. So that particular company, Lawns by Lichtfeld, is out of the picture at this point. Immediately after I got that news, I tried to contact the property owner and did receive a response that same day that even though that tenant had vacated, that they did intend to proceed with attempting to come into compliance, presumably for the purpose of marketing for another company to come in and use the building and the property. At this point, I think the critical question is, well, have they shown any actions to substantiate that commitment? And they have. This last paragraph on the update indicates the things that they've done very recently to try to get into compliance. Even though it's a relatively simple project construction wise with regard to getting the paving done and some other improvements, it is a little bit more complicated than you might expect. For example, when they discussed with engineering the need for the paving permit, they were advised that based on square footage, they were just over the limit and they needed to do a stormwater drainage analysis and get an engineer to do that. They have retained an engineer to do that. There might be an issue with the integrity of the building that was constructed. Since kind of midway through construction of that building, the permit was voided due to inactivity. I contacted building inspection and they informed me that since that building was a pre-engineered building, not a stick built building, that there would be no benefit to them at this point inspecting the building, that it would have to be inspected by a structural engineer before building inspection could renew the permit or otherwise be prepared to issue a certificate of occupancy of all the other conditions we're complied with. They have informed me that they have retained the services of a structural engineer to inspect that pre-engineered building. They have also been working with traffic engineering and building inspection regarding other things they need to do to get the permitting process in the works. So they have initiated these efforts. Our position at this point is there's really no basis or justification for even scheduling a revocation hearing at this point. Our goal is to get people into compliance and give them a fair opportunity to do that. So that's our position at this point. I think there's folks in the audience that have a different opinion about that that you'll be hearing from. So at this point, if you have any questions, I'll answer them, but that's all I've got. Ms. Lyons. When, is there a deadline for them to become compliant? The December 1st was the deadline to become compliant. If they wanted someone to occupy that building and property under the terms of the conditional use that was previously granted, I'm glad you asked that because it's important not to think that that's the deadline for automatically kicking this over to a revocation mode. That's not the intent of that deadline. If they don't meet that deadline, then it's simple that nobody can occupy that facility and do that business until they do get into compliance. but you're saying mr marks that obviously they've contacted a structural engineer and traffic engineering and they're making a a very very strong effort to try to come into compliance and it does appear that way at this point yes and very good does anybody else have any other questions for mr marks thank you thank you would somebody like to come up i see that there's some opposition here and so if you'd like to approach the podium and state your name for the record please my name is dr. Lisa Gano and I came to the last meeting to actually request the revocation hearing on this issue and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak on this again I actually flew in on the red eye to make sure I was here for this meeting so I think it's that important I know this is an ongoing investigation. I know that you've been given an update today. I do question about the greenhouse being out because I actually saw their vehicle there at the property at 1030 this morning. So I'm not sure about that, even though it looks like they vacated the property. I would like an opportunity to explain why the greenhouse really can't ever come into compliance. I did send a letter after the last meeting in October when I was here to Dr. Paulson and Mr. Duncan from planning, explaining my case. I think my letter says a lot. I also have a letter from my neighborhood association, the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association, and they agree with me on this issue. And they have sent a letter also to city folks explaining why they support my position. I actually have the president of our association here today, as well as a neighbor, that would like to speak on this issue. As I mentioned last time, they did not meet the conditions. Their permits were voided. The building permits were voided in 2007. There are several permits that are missing. I believe there are possible issues with the soundness of the building. I believe there are issues with some of the variances with the property. This property sat for several years, not just one year. Neighbors did complain about this issue. Whether there's an official record or not, my neighborhood association knows. they sent a letter in 2009 about this there were complaints over the years I know in 2012 I personally complained about this in December 2014 when I called down here there should be a record of my call somewhere where I explained in 2014 I was concerned about this property going up for lease I have watched the video from 2006 when this conditional permit was first given um i watched mr jameson who owns the property stand up here and say that he agreed to all of the conditions all of the 10 conditions a neighbor got up and had concerns and was told by the chair of the board of adjustment at that time that these conditions will be enforced that building inspection will make sure that these things are enforced i am still requesting a revocation hearing and requesting that the structure be removed i think it's really going to continue to be a problem if it's not removed i think it's a this is a real issue for not just me and my neighborhood but all lexington citizens if this is allowed to happen if they're given a conditional use permit and it sits for a very long time and then it's used again later for a purpose other than what it was intended and the zoning where it is zoned i am really prepared to plead my case i brought boxes of documents i'm prepared to give give you as much information and as you would like although i know you're probably going to tell me that this is still ongoing so i'm just really concerned about where this is going and i see that the property owners responded on the 19th so um i would i would still like to see the structure removed thank you dr gano does Does anybody have any questions for Dr. Gonneau? I'd like to make a comment. First of all, I'm not going to support a revocation hearing today. The applicant is making a good faith effort. We've got December 1 to see how that's going. We have a meeting coming up, Dr. Gonneau, on December 10th. And I think that the board could make a more informed determination on December 10th. At our board meeting, we can always schedule a revocation hearing for our January 29th meeting, if in fact the board does that or wants to support that. But having given the applicant and the property owner until December 1st, I'm not prepared here today to support a revocation hearing. And even with all the support document that you have, I'd like to go and let this process work out, as Mr. Marks has remarked, that they are making a very strong effort. If, in fact, we come back to our December 10th meeting and we find that these things are not being followed as they had intended, I think that would be a much better time to discuss a revocation hearing. I don't know if my colleagues agree with me or not, but I certainly am not ready to move forward with that today. So at the end of the day, we're not going to take any action on this today. I appreciate your time. Okay. If you'd like to make a comment, Dr. Martin, please do. Charles Martin. I live at 7416 Grimes Mill. I've been watching this property since before it was built. I was here at that Board of Adjustment meeting when they were given the permit to grow sod. One thing, grow sod. I've been coming here for 25 years watching things here, and I know it's a hard job, and you guys get it right almost every time. But it wasn't you guys, but I think those guys got it wrong in 06. And I think that what's happened since then only shows us that. You can't have a nursery on 1.2 acres or whatever it is, and you can't build a greenhouse between the interstate and the state highway when you have a 50-foot setback from one, a 30-foot setback from the other, and I'm not sure those easements were ever even requested. So I think my point is he cannot come into compliance. He cannot. But he will say, I'm working hard. What would he have said if you hadn't called him yesterday? I bet we would not have heard anything. You called him and said, well, give us something. Oh, well, I'll give you something right here. What do I need to give you? We need this. We need this. Oh, yeah, I'm doing all that. So you're going to have the meeting, and he's going to say, oh, yeah, he's done all of these things. That doesn't matter. The conditional use permit shouldn't have been given. and now you have an opportunity to right a wrong. They're not wanting to lease this to grow sod. They're wanting to lease this for another use, and it's a big structure, and I'm sure it's some real expense. But he hasn't complained about losing the money for nine years, so I don't think that the fact that he's put money into it carries much weight. It was wasted, and it was a bad idea then. So thank you, Dr. Martin. Is anybody else? Ms. Whitman? I'd just like to make one statement. We do have a time certain of December the 1st. Is that correct? Mr. Marks? Yes, it's December 1st, but again, I need to emphasize that that's the deadline to get everything into compliance if you're intending to have someone occupy the building and property and run a business. Now, this property was vacant for at least eight years. Right. So obviously, I think we understand that it's not going to be occupied by December 1st. But I think that, Ms. Whitman, to your question, I think that we would have, I think that we would have, be able to evaluate this a little bit better with the progress or lack of progress, if that's the case, on December 10th. Would you agree with that, Mr. Martin? I agree, but at the same time, let me put it this way. If we come back on December 11th, find out that they've made some progress, but not much, and they're still out of compliance, what's the practical implication of that? Is that justification for moving forward with a revocation? Or does that simply mean that another company can't come in there and occupy the building and run the business that this board approved in 2006? We believe it means the latter. But you just can't have someone come in and run their business and occupy the building. but that the person who comes in and occupies the building and runs the business has to be in compliance with the conditional use permit. Correct. And that conditional use permit was for growing sod. Is that correct? Well, as it was explained, that was their primary intent, and it was kind of experimental at the time, to use the building for growing the sod. But there was no condition placed on that by the board to restrict it. That was what he explained. he intended to do with it, but there was no condition. Also, it was clear on the site plan that they presented, they also intended to use other portions of the property as a plant nursery. Mr. Marks, so they could use the building for a nursery underneath the current conditional use permit? Is that kind of the position? They could use the building for other purposes other than growing sod, yes. How open-ended is that? I think it's totally open-ended as long as it's plant material, something related to agricultural uses. Is that what we're, like horticulture? Well, I hate to use the term agricultural because growing, you know, just as an example, lawns by Lictifil, their vision was to specialize in perennials. So I don't think growing perennials is an agricultural activity, but that's what they intended to do with that building. and one last question i can't remember last month did we get a copy of the conditional use permit with all the conditions i don't recall for sure if you did get that or not i don't think so this is the first time i've seen any of this material which is another reason that i'm not ready to move for a revocation hearing today next month can we get a copy of that sure if you do an update just so we can see what exactly how it reads in the report maybe yep okay we'd appreciate that okay thanks any other questions for mr marks mary diane hannah 6398 old richmond road um my understanding is and i have not seen the tapes like lisa has but i think she's seen the whole process that happened back in the day uh when you have a conditional use permit it's kind of like what Ms. Meyer said you have a conditional use permit for a certain thing and you can't change one conditional use for another you have to start over and have another petition for another use if it's another company or another type of thing like growing perennials I guess and as far as she is concerned or has read it was just for growing EnviroSod. It was for that company. But she has a whole lot more data on that that would support that. So I just question the thing about can you just move it right into from one use to another use in the zone, because I thought a conditional use was for that condition. Any other use, having a landscaping company, that's a different conditional use. So one would go away, and the other one would have to ask for permission again. Is that correct? Mr. Marks? In this particular case, the board did not adopt a specific condition that said it's null and void if some other entity comes in and takes over the conditional use. So another company could come in. So there didn't have to be another conditional use? No. And like I said, there was no specific condition about this being just facade. So it was for that condition. Excuse me, Ms. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Marks. I think I'd like to go ahead and again. This is the first time, too, that we've all seen this material. I'd like to do a little bit more homework on this case. But, again, I don't think the board is ready to take any action today. We appreciate your comments. We appreciate, Dr. Gonneau, you making the red-eye flight to be here today. And I will tell you, we will look over this issue. We will talk about it again on December 10th. You know, if the board does feel, you know, over a period of time, if a revocation hearing needs to be, you know, happen, And we will certainly, we've done it before, but we'd like to make sure that I think that we do our due diligence on this as well. And with that said, we appreciate you all coming here today, and thanks for your time. And Dr. Martin, unless you've got something else, you can come to the mic if you would. What's happening on December the 10th? When is our next Board of Adjustment meeting? It's actually Friday, December 11th. We would probably like to hear from Mr. Marks on that Friday and see what the status of the property is in the new applicant as well. He's going to say the applicant is trying to get somebody to do some asphalt. He's going to try to do this. He's doing this. He just can't. He's just blah, blah, blah. Then what do we do? Well, Dr. Martin, we'll address that on December 11th. Thanks very much. I think you all have in front of you the filing and meeting schedule for, actually, that should be for 2016. I think on the agenda it has 2015. Mr. Salee has put forward a new updated document. Is everybody, obviously, there's no major changes in this from what you've sent before, is there not? You're correct, Mr. Chairman, there is not. We've highlighted the changes from the schedule the board reviewed last month. One of our staff members found an inconsistency in the dates we had listed for the board for the technical committee versus the dates the planning commission under their schedule. So this change would rectify both. In all three of these months, which are March, June, and September, it'll actually mean the filing deadline will be back a week, which will be helpful to the general community at large. But we did want the board to go ahead and adopt these dates so that the technical committee meetings match on all the schedules. Thank you. Thank you. Do we need to have a formal motion to adopt this? Yes, sir. Because it was adopted last month, these changes do need to have a motion. Thank you. Ms. Meyer? I move we adopt the final draft for the meeting and filing schedule for 2016 as presented to us today. Motion made by Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Gross seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next meeting date will be December 11th. I just realized there is a typo on the, it is Friday, December 11th, 2015. Okay, because that's got December 10th on this agenda as well. The Landscape Review Committee. Yes, there is one member of the Landscape Review Committee, the representative of the tree board. Her term is up with our Division of Planning staff that's on the tree board. We brought that up, and there is a Mr. Rory Cayley has agreed to serve, and he is on the tree board, and he has agreed to serve on the Landscape Review Committee. It does require action by the board. To accept him? Yes. What is his name again? His name is Rory Cayley. it's a mr. it's written in the in the text very good well we'd like his is can we have a motion to accept mr. Rory Cayley to to serve in the capacity on a landscape review committee I move that we appoint mr. Rory Cayley to the landscape review committee thank you miss Meyers there a second miss Whitman seconds all in favor signify by saying aye any opposed very good does any other member of the board have any anything to say anything to add anybody from the staff staff would just like to wish the board a happy Thanksgiving and I hope you have a safe holiday and thank you so much again for your service. Very good. You all have a wonderful holiday, safe and happy. Don't eat too much. And Mr. Glover, just to make sure that that's a December 11th, this next board meeting. That's number 10. With that said, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.