# Board of Adjustment - December 11, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 11, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3848 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3848?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-12-11 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 13,739 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 December 11, 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, including approval of minutes, conditional use appeals, an administrative review, and various informational updates. The board took 8 motions and votes and heard 5 public comments. Among the outcomes, the board approved the conditional use appeals for Tony & Lisa Hodges and YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC, while postponing the conditional use appeal for Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington and the administrative review for Steve Perry & Lex Properties, LLC. One scheduled item was postponed, and a board update regarding 7524 Old Richmond Road was deferred. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 11, 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 The Board took the following actions on December 11, 2015: **Approval of November 20, 2015 Minutes** [timestamp: 00:01:59] Motion by Mr. Gross, seconded by Ms. Meyer. The minutes were approved unanimously. **C-2015-71: Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington Conditional Use Permit Appeal** [timestamp: 00:05:17] Motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Ms. Meyer. The conditional use permit appeal for constructing access to Toronto Road was postponed unanimously. **A-2015-60: Zoning Enforcement Administrative Appeal** [timestamp: 00:11:44] Motion by Mr. Needham, seconded by Ms. Whitman. The third-party administrative appeal regarding as-built survey compliance was postponed unanimously. **V-2015-72: Stringer Variance** [timestamp: 00:13:25] Motion by Mr. Needham, seconded by Mr. Forester. The variance for Jeff & Jenny Stringer to reduce side yard from 25 feet to 1.5 feet for a detached accessory garage in an A-U zone was approved unanimously. Conditions include development in accordance with the submitted site plan and obtaining all necessary permits, including a building permit for the garage, prior to construction. **V-2015-73: Green Lantern Farm Variance** [timestamp: 00:15:33] Motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Mr. Forester. The variance for Green Lantern Farm, LLC to reduce front yard from 300 feet to 75 feet for tenant homes in an A-R zone was approved unanimously. Conditions require development according to the submitted site plan and obtaining all necessary permits prior to construction. **V-2015-74: Salyers Fence Variance** [timestamp: 00:16:41] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Needham. The variance for Berkley Salyers to increase front yard fence height from 4 feet to 4'8" in an R-2 zone was approved unanimously. The applicant must obtain a fence permit. **CV-2015-69: Hodges Nightclub Conditional Use Permit and Variance** [timestamp: 00:18:49] Motion by Mr. Forster, seconded by Ms. Whitman. The conditional use permit for Tony & Lisa Hodges to operate a nightclub with live entertainment and variance to reduce distance from residential zone from 100 feet to 65 feet in a B-1 zone was approved unanimously. Conditions include obtaining a Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy, prohibiting outdoor speakers, limiting live entertainment hours to end no later than 2:30 am, and requiring sound-proofing to the maximum extent feasible. **C-2015-70: YMCA of Central Kentucky Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 01:02:13] Motion by Mr. Glover, seconded by Mr. Gross. The conditional use permit for YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC to develop and use property as part of an adjoining YMCA in an R-3 zone was approved unanimously. Conditions include obtaining necessary permits, installing an evergreen screen adjacent to residential properties, constructing a sidewalk along Pascoli Place, and allowing up to three years to exercise the permit. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the meeting with concerns about various permits and projects. **Roman Catholic Diocese Access Permit** Ron Winfield [timestamp: 00:06:27] expressed concern that the notification letter failed to disclose access to an assisted living facility, which he identified as the main reason for the permit request. He requested a postponement to allow neighbors to be properly informed. **YMCA Fields Traffic and Safety** Rudy Lesshafft [timestamp: 00:27:16] raised concerns about increased traffic on Pascoli Place resulting from the YMCA's rear entrance. He cited potential danger to children crossing the area and expressed fear of drug activity associated with pavilions, referencing crime data from nearby areas. **Pascoli Place Parking Safety** Donna Ensminger [timestamp: 00:31:21] expressed concern that parking on Pascoli Place would endanger children, particularly when parents are distracted. She requested that parking be prohibited to ensure safety. **Greenhouse Project Safety and Transparency** Dr. Lisa Gonneau [timestamp: 01:09:37] raised concerns about the safety of an unpermitted greenhouse structure and cited lack of transparency in the permitting process. She noted the absence of records for contractors and utilities and called for a revocation hearing. **MICA Group Compliance** Charles Martin [timestamp: 01:15:50] stated that the MICA group failed to meet the December 1, 2015 deadline and has not operated in good faith. He questioned the legitimacy of the conditional use permit. ## Contested Items The December 11, 2015 meeting included three contested items that generated significant discussion and disagreement among participants. **Roman Catholic Diocese Access Permit** Neighbors opposed a permit for the Roman Catholic Diocese, citing concerns about transparency in the notification process. The primary issue was that the notice failed to disclose access to an assisted living facility associated with the project. Community members requested postponement of the decision to allow for proper notification and review. The disagreement centered on whether adequate disclosure had been made to affected neighbors and whether the approval process had followed proper transparency standards. **YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC Fields** This item prompted a heated discussion with multiple neighbors raising substantial concerns about the proposed project's impacts. Speakers detailed worries regarding traffic congestion, public safety, parking availability, noise levels, and potential criminal activity. The public comment period was lengthy and detailed, with numerous speakers presenting their concerns. Board members engaged in extended questioning about these issues, indicating the contentious nature of the proposal and the community's significant opposition to the project as presented. **Revocation Hearing for 7524 Old Richmond Road** A procedural dispute emerged regarding a conditional use permit for this property. The disagreement centered on whether the conditional use permit remained valid and whether a revocation hearing was the appropriate legal mechanism to address the situation. Dr. Gonneau and staff raised legal and procedural questions about the validity of the permit and the proper course of action, indicating uncertainty about the technical and legal grounds for proceeding with the revocation hearing. ## ATTENDANCE Chairman Barry Stumbo called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. [timestamp: 00:00:00] **Members Present:** - Barry Stumbo - Thomas Glover - Janice Meyer - Joan Whitman - Chad Needham - Branden Gross - Larry Forester Staff and other officials were also present at the meeting. ## APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the November 20, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:01:59] Mr. Gross moved to approve the minutes, and Ms. Meyer seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. ## Postponement or Withdrawal of Scheduled Business [timestamp: 00:05:17] The Board considered requests for postponement or withdrawal of scheduled business items. Mr. Emmons reported that applicant Berkley Salyers was unable to attend due to a medical appointment. Staff recommended approval of the postponement request. The Board unanimously voted to postpone case C-2015-71 concerning the Roman Catholic Diocese. Mr. Winfield and Father Nick Pagano were present during this discussion. The postponement was granted due to concerns about notice and opposition related to the matter. ## No Discussion Items [timestamp: 00:12:52] The Board proceeded with abbreviated hearings for four cases where staff recommended approval, the appellant agreed with the recommendation, and no objections were raised. All four cases were approved unanimously. The following individuals participated in this agenda item: Mr. Needham, Mr. Forester, Mr. Glover, Ms. Meyer, Mr. Walbourn, Mr. Hodges, Mr. Todd, and David Martorano. **Outcome:** All four cases were approved unanimously. ## Transcript or Witnesses [timestamp: 00:02:31] Chairman Stumbo provided an informational announcement regarding the procedural rights available to applicants and objectors during the meeting. He announced that both applicants and objectors are entitled to have a transcript prepared of the proceedings and are entitled to have witnesses sworn. This announcement served to inform all parties present of their formal rights and available procedures for the meeting process. ## Variance Appeals The Board reviewed the statutory requirements governing variance appeals under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 100.243. Chairman Stumbo led this discussion, which focused on the legal framework that must be applied when considering variance requests. [timestamp: 00:02:31] The Board examined the specific findings required by statute for variance appeals, which include: - Public health considerations - Public safety considerations - Character of the vicinity - Hardship determinations No variance appeals remained pending for discussion or action at this meeting. The agenda item was presented as informational in nature, serving to ensure the Board's understanding of the applicable statutory requirements rather than to address any active cases. The outcome of this agenda item was informational only. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Tony & Lisa Hodges [timestamp: 00:17:43] The Board considered a conditional use appeal submitted by Tony and Lisa Hodges. The application requested approval for a nightclub with live entertainment and a dimensional variance to reduce the required distance from a residential zone from 100 feet to 65 feet. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Hodges, Mr. Forster, and Ms. Whitman, who presented and discussed various aspects of the proposal. The Board approved the conditional use permit, allowing the nightclub with live entertainment to proceed. The approval included a dimensional variance that would permit the establishment to operate at a reduced setback distance of 65 feet from the residential zone, rather than the standard 100-foot requirement. The approval was granted subject to six conditions that the applicants must satisfy. These conditions were established to address concerns and ensure compliance with local regulations and community standards. ## Conditional Use Appeal: YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC [timestamp: 01:01:39] The Board considered a conditional use appeal for YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC regarding the development of outdoor sports fields. Key speakers in the discussion included Mr. Todd, David Martorano, Rudy Lesshafft, Donna Ensminger, Charles Martin, and Dr. Lisa Gonneau. The Board approved the conditional use permit, subject to seven conditions designed to regulate the project's implementation and impact: - A three-year window to exercise the permit - Screening requirements - Sidewalk construction The conditional use permit allows the YMCA to proceed with developing outdoor sports fields at the proposed location, contingent upon meeting all specified conditions. **Outcome:** The conditional use appeal was approved. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington [timestamp: 00:05:17] The Board considered a conditional use appeal submitted by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington. Key speakers during this agenda item included Father Nick Pagano, Mr. Winfield, and Mr. Emmons. The Board postponed consideration of the appeal rather than proceeding with a decision at this meeting. The postponement was driven by concerns regarding inadequate notice to affected parties. Additionally, opposition from neighbors to the proposed conditional use was noted as a factor in the Board's decision. The applicant, represented by Father Nick Pagano, requested the postponement. The Board agreed to grant this request and scheduled reconsideration of the appeal for the January 29, 2016 meeting, allowing additional time to address notice requirements and neighbor concerns before the matter would be revisited. ## Administrative Review: Steve Perry & Lex Properties, LLC [timestamp: 00:11:44] The Board addressed a third-party administrative appeal concerning as-built survey compliance for Steve Perry & Lex Properties, LLC. Key participants in the discussion included Mr. Walbourn, Mr. Needham, and Ms. Whitman. The matter involved a request for postponement of the administrative review. A one-month delay was requested to allow time to resolve the underlying compliance issue related to the as-built survey. The Board voted to postpone the administrative review, granting the requested delay to permit resolution of the matter outside of the formal hearing process. ## Board Item: Update on 7524 Old Richmond Road Zoning Enforcement provided an update on the property at 7524 Old Richmond Road [timestamp: 01:04:10]. The presentation addressed ongoing issues at the property and actions taken to resolve them. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Mr. Marks, Dr. Gonneau, Charles Martin, and Ms. Jones. **Presentation and Issues Addressed** Zoning Enforcement reported that the MICA group has taken steps to address multiple concerns at the property, including: - Stormwater management issues - Structural problems - Access-related concerns **Board Decision** The Board decided not to hold a revocation hearing at this time. Instead, the Board chose to continue monitoring the property's progress and requested a follow-up update at the January 29, 2016 meeting. **Outcome** This agenda item was deferred, allowing for continued oversight of the property's compliance and remediation efforts. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 01:34:53] Staff members Bill Sallee, Jimmy Emmons, and Tammye McMullen presented this informational item to the Board. The staff wished the Board and their families a safe and happy holiday season. ## Next Meeting Date Mr. Glover announced that the next meeting is scheduled for January 29, 2016. [timestamp: 01:35:28] This agenda item was presented as informational in nature, with no debate or concerns raised during the discussion. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Stumbo after all business had been completed. [timestamp: 01:35:28] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve minutes of the November 20, 2015 meeting - **C-2015-71** — postponed (0-0): Postpone conditional use permit appeal for Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington to construct access to Toronto Road - **A-2015-60** — postponed (0-0): Postpone third-party administrative appeal of Zoning Enforcement decision regarding as-built survey compliance - **V-2015-72** — passed (0-0): Approve variance for Jeff & Jenny Stringer to reduce side yard from 25 feet to 1.5 feet for detached accessory garage in A-U zone - **V-2015-73** — passed (0-0): Approve variance for Green Lantern Farm, LLC to reduce front yard from 300 feet to 75 feet for tenant homes in A-R zone - **V-2015-74** — passed (0-0): Approve variance for Berkley Salyers to increase front yard fence height from 4 feet to 4’8” in R-2 zone - **CV-2015-69** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for Tony & Lisa Hodges to operate nightclub with live entertainment and variance to reduce distance from residential zone from 100 feet to 65 feet in B-1 zone - **C-2015-70** — passed (0-0): Approve conditional use permit for YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC to develop and use property as part of adjoining YMCA in R-3 zone --- ## Full transcript I'm so glad to see I'm training, training, training, training, training, training I'm training, training, training I'm training, training, training Thank you. I apologize for my tardiness this morning or this afternoon. A couple housekeeping items, if we could. If you have a cell phone, please make sure that it's off. And if you do need to make a phone call, please go out in the lobby and do so. Second thing I'd like to ask is anyone who is going to testify today, would you please stand up and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You can be seated. I'd like to, I know that we have some minutes from our November 20th board meeting. And Tammy, thank you for sending those out. Everybody had an opportunity to take a look at them. Any changes? If not, that you're going to entertain a motion. Thank you, Ms. Griggs. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. We're going to go ahead and sound the agenda, and we'll ask if the applicant is here. And I would like to ask Jeff and Jenny Stringer, are they in the audience? Is the applicant here? You don't need to come up right now. I'm going to go ahead and sound the I'm going to go ahead and sound the the agenda and I want to make sure everyone's present and if there's any opposition we always ask that you all step out in the lobby and try to try to resolve what difference you might have is there any opposition to the first item any opposition to Jeff and Jenny Stringer okay The second item is Green Lantern Farm. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Green Lantern? Any opposition? Berkeley Salyers. Is the applicant here? Mr. Emmons, do you have something to report on that? I'm sorry, Mr. Salyers. Yes. Yes, you have a letter at your desk today. I spoke with Mr. Laney Cornett, who is representing this property. He is unable to attend today because he had a very necessary medical appointment for a family member that he had to go to today that it could not reschedule. He did send in a letter requesting that if there is any opposition, he would request postponement. but otherwise he's read and agree with the staff report and request approval. I know that he's not here, and typically the board is doing that, but this is actually a fairly simple case, and after speaking with him and getting this letter to you, staff would feel comfortable even with him not here approving this application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any opposition to Berkeley Sailors? Tony and Lisa Hodges, is the applicant here? Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to Tony and Lisa Hodges? YMCA of Central Kentucky, is the applicant present? Is there any opposition to the YMCA? There is opposition. We would also ask, if you all would, if you haven't had an opportunity to step out in the hallway and see if we might be able to resolve any of the questions that you all may have of the applicant and see if we can read some type of a resolution. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington, is the applicant present? Yes. Okay. Is there any opposition? There is opposition. I would also ask that you all do the same to step out in the hallway and I know that staff has recommended postponement Mr. Emmons, did you want to comment on that? We've had meetings with traffic engineering as late as this morning and have a potential alternative recommendation for the board today should you wish to go forward with this it's our understanding that the applicant does want to go forward with this, and the opposition might not want to go forward with this, so it's really up to the board. We do have an alternative recommendation for you today, should you choose to have a hearing. Very good. If the applicants want to go ahead and the opposition step out, we'll hear this case a little bit later, and we'll hear staff's recommendation as well. Ms. Whitman? Is it appropriate to ask for a postponement from my position in opposition? Sir, come to the mic and state your name for the record. My name is Ron Winfield. I live at 173 Toronto Road here in Lexington. I wanted to request that this permit hearing for the church be postponed because the letter notification that went out to the neighbors, myself and my neighbors, makes no mention of the entrance to the assisted living facility, which is really the main reason for this permit request. It only says access to and from Pax Christi. It says nothing about the under construction assisted living. facility. Thank you. Mr. Imid, any comment? As it's designed, currently there is a cross-access easement for the assisted living facility across the church's property. As it was submitted and as it's designed, this is still an application for the church to get access to Toronto Road, but there is a cross-connection, so the assisted living facility would also potentially have access to toronto road also but am i correct in assuming that it's the applicant that has to ask for the postponement i i believe that this is within the uh board the board has 60 days in which to act on any application uh should you wish to postpone this application today you can you to your january 29th hearing that would be be within your 60 days afforded to the board. Certainly, that's whether you could have a hearing, you could go ahead and vote to postpone it, you could do multiple things. There's a lot of possibilities that the board has right now. My concern is that the neighbors that I know that I spoke to had no idea that it was going to include an entrance and egress to that assisted living. And the letter that went out, as I said, it doesn't contain the full information and disclosure so that neighbors could decide whether they want to come down here and speak or not. That's my only concern. There are a couple issues at hand. I know that traffic engineering has got some questions, as does the fire department. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman. and they've reviewed this application pretty closely. In terms of the notice, we would point out to the board that a copy of the site plan that's at your place was also included in the mailing. So the letter did not specifically speak to the assisted living facility because they are not the applicant, obviously. But the site plan that does show the connection was included. I think from the staff perspective, we don't believe that there is a notice flaw for your hearing today. We think the notice was properly mailed and sent. but certainly the board does have the ability to postpone it should you wish to do so. Thank you. I'd like to, you can have a seat, sir. I'd like to ask the applicant, I think if you'd come on forward and state your name for the record, please. Sure, it's Father Nick Pagano and the pastor of Pax Christi, and I'm the applicant. Pastor, the staff seems to be recommending postpone it. I know some of your neighbors have an issue as well. I know traffic engineering, a fire also. Is it an issue to postpone this for 30 days? I would prefer that it not be postponed. We actually have been meeting with traffic and with the planning department and came up with an alternate plan that's acceptable to the church and in which the incursion is only going to be into our property. Have staff had an opportunity to review this plan? Yes, they have. I believe they have. they'd ask them. Have you had a chance to talk to the neighbors about this alternate plan? We actually had a meet and greet two weeks ago, and two neighbors, two or three neighbors, showed up that evening. One was Mr. Winfield. We told him what was going on. He said he would be here today to object. He is the direct neighbor. But the other neighbors were there. We're fine with it. In fact, I believe we have someone from the community who's here to talk on behalf of the application. Father, I'd like to, I don't know if anybody else has any other comments, but I think that there's some issues that probably need to be resolved. I know, again, staffing has some issues. I'd like to see this postponed for 30 days. I accept the board's decision. Would that be acceptable? That's fine. I think you all have some things to work out. Is there a motion to postpone? I'll so move, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Myers. We'll postpone until our January. what date is our January meeting? That will be on January 29th? 29th, yes. 29th. Thank you very much. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. We've got an administrative review, Steve Perry and Lexington Properties. Is the applicant with us? Mr. Chair, Jacob Walburn on behalf of Steve Perry and Lex Properties. In consultation with the Department of Law as well as planning staff, we had a productive meeting this week. We're not quite ready to drop this off your agenda, but we think we are working towards a resolution. I'd ask the board's indulgence for a postponement, one more, and we'll either hear this or have it resolved by your January meeting. Does any member of the board have any questions for Ms. Walburn? Requesting a postponement to January 29th. Is there a motion? Thank you, Mr. Dean. Is there a second? Thank you very much, Ms. Whitman. all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed you've got it thank you get this thing resolved i know that we've got a board item also mr marks i think and tracy jones are are going to be commenting on uh aaron jameson martin uh feld posh that'll be coming up and we'll address that um the first case with no opposition is jeff and jenny stringer excuse me the applicant please come forward state your name for the record Jeff Stringer. Mr. Stringer, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Stringer? If there's no questions for Mr. Stringer, he'll entertain a motion. I make a motion that we approve V-2015-72. Jeff and Jenny Stringer appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 25 feet to 1.5 feet in order to construct a detached accessory garage in the urban agricultural AU zone at 4420 Old Schoolhouse Lane. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? A second. Mr. Forrester, second. all in favor of 65 is saying aye aye yes mr griffon mention the condition yeah oh well i'd have to look at them but no i did ask you you did ask and i no in the motion well well yes you can you know make a motion is to approve a subject to the two conditions and this emotion is um subject to the two conditions um the following conditions do you you want me to read those? I think that'll do it. And I'll second. Of course, they're seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Green Lantern Farm. Good afternoon. Jacob Walburn on behalf of Green Lantern Farm and Richard and Sue Masson. Very good. You're busy these days, Counselor. Business is good. The staff has recommended approval subject to the two conditions. Does your client agree to abide by those? Absolutely. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Waller? I don't have a, I guess just a statement. I grew up really close to this property, and I know those two tenant houses that were there. The biggest concern I had as a kid was riding my bicycle by, and the dog would come out and chase me up that hill. And so I would just want to make that a note that that could be improved upon. We'll try to keep any past things down. Thank you. Maybe we'll have a starting post to beware of dog. Is there a motion to approve? Mr. Chair, I move we approve the 2015-73 Green Lantern Farm LLC's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 300 feet to 75 feet in order to reconstruct two tenant homes in the agricultural zone at 4400 Kenny Lane for the reasons cited by staff and subject to the two conditions listed. Thank you. Mr. Glover, is there a second? Yes, sir. Mr. Forster, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck. the next item with no opposition is Mr. Selliers and I know that we normally like to have the applicants with us and obviously if there's no opposition we would definitely postpone this but I'd like to ask the board their pleasure if they would like to if they would like to go ahead and vote on this if you're comfortable with that the spire shakes her head mr. Needham okay obviously the letter the the staff had recommended approval you know subject to subject to the one condition and the applicant had agreed to do so um is there a motion to approve mr chair i move that we approve the 2015-74 berkeley soyers saliers appeal for variance to increase the maximum allowable height for a front yard fence from four feet to four feet eight inches in a two-family residential zone at 301-303 Lakeshore Drive for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the one condition. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Needham seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. I think the next excuse me, I've been battling a cold all week. I'd like to have Tony and Lisa Hodges as the applicant present. Please come forward and state your name for the record. Tony Hodges. Mr. Hodges, staff has recommended approval. You actually have conditional use to operate a nightclub with indoor live entertainment and variance to the required distance from a residential zone. They've got recommendations. They've got six actual recommendations for this. Do you and two for the conditional use. Do you agree to abide by all the recommendations? Yes, I do. Does the Board of Adjustment have any questions? And I'd like to ask the staff, do we need to make two motions on this, or would one suffice? Sir, you could make one motion that approves both the conditional use and the variance for the reasons listed by the staff subject to the recommended conditions, should you wish to. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Hodges? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve CV-2015-6920 and Lisa Hodges' appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a nightclub with indoor live entertainment and a variance to require distance from a residential zone from 100 feet to 65 feet in a neighborhood business zone B1 at 828 Lane Allen Road, Suite 140-150, based on the staff recommendations for the conditional use and the staff recommendations for the variance and the six conditions as mentioned. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Myers seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck. Thank you. I think Mr. Salee went out to get the Y. Mr. Salee, are they ready? Because we're ready to call them if they... They are. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we have several letters of opposition to pass out on this. As they're coming in, I will go ahead and start passing those out. I wish they would expand the I don't know. I live in the high school. I live in the high school. Oh, you do? Yeah. I live in the high school. It takes me probably 15 to 20. And you go right out here. Yeah, I'm on that placement. 100 yards. Yeah, I'm going to take a left hit. It's going to spring. Yeah. Totally. Totally. I'd like to go ahead and call the next case. Mr. Image, you have a few more to pass out? I do. I'm sending them. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'd like to go ahead and call the next case. Would the YMCA please step forward? State your name for the record, please. Mr. Stumbo, my name is Tommy Todd. I'm with Kincaid and Stills, and I here represent the YMCA of Central Kentucky. It's actually incorporated, by the way. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd, the staff has actually recommended approval subject to seven conditions. However, as you see, we have some opposition, and we'd like to hear from them. And in looking at some of the letters that we've also received, There's questions regarding traffic and safety and congestion and drainage and runoff and that sort of thing. So I'm sure that those issues hopefully can be addressed. But what I'd like to do, I know you all went outside. Were you able to resolve any questions? We certainly are in favor of a couple of suggestions that the neighbors made. One of the streets that these fields will bounder on is Pascoe. Thank you. And one of the concerns is that the neighbors think that this is a fairly high, they believe it will be a high traffic area, and would request that there be no parking signs on that. We're in favor of that. We have, I believe, about 100 more parking spaces at this Y than we have at the Beaumont Y. Even though the facilities are roughly the same size, we very much prefer the participants in our youth programs to park in our parking lot and literally just walk across a sidewalk and into the fields if they're playing there. We do not want people parking on Pasco, and we would agree with the neighbor's suggestions. Obviously, we're not the city of Lexington. and we can't control parking. But to the extent that we can, we certainly would request that and would agree with that suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Todd. What I'd like to do is I'd like to hear from some of the opposition, some of the neighbors. I know that they're here, so if you wouldn't mind, we'll bring you back up and let you address their... Well, I think there was one other issue. Well, that's fine. Okay. We'll go ahead. Hello there, sir. please step forward and state your name for the record. Thank you. My name's Rudy LeShaft. How are you all doing today? Good. We live in a nice neighborhood, no question about it. We've got a lot of things going on. We've got a high school on one end and a YMCA on the other. It seems to be that behind where the high school is, behind part of Tuscany, there's a road that's coming out right behind these nice homes. We don't know why they didn't put them on another street off Industrial. But anyway, this is just about the YMCA. We're concerned about the traffic on Pasquale because that rear entrance to the YMCA that comes off Old Rosebud runs into Pasquale. A lot of traffic there. between the traffic there from the school and the traffic from the YMCA, it's going to be hard to keep up with. The YMCA wants to put a pavilion in two small fields, t-ball and soccer. They're concerned about the noise. What time are these guys going to start playing? Are there going to be lights? We hope not. A pavilion that the Y says they want to protect the little kids for when it rains in the sun. It's fine for the Y to say that. But the neighborhoods who have to live by that pavilion, at nighttime, we don't know what's going to be coming in there. Every time we've seen pavilions, and I hate to say this, I'm from Louisville, I love Lexington. They shut down a lot of our parks because they had pavilions and it was a place for drugs. And once the kids are gone, the big kids move in. And that's not what we want. We want a nice neighborhood. We want to get along with the Y, but we can't just roll over and let everybody have what they want. I took some notices from a, oh, you guys ever heard of a firefighter here? I'm stumbling through my words. Raidsonline.com, R-A-I-D-S, online.com is what the police department uses to analyze crime. we went out and just kind of winged it a little bit and it's probably really unfair but it does the trick for me this is something that why we're concerned on Georgetown Street why these are all your crimes would you like to hand that we can't see that from here Would you hand that to... And this is for the last month. And this is a crime we probably, we have right now. Right there where the Y's going. It's unfair to use the North End for that, but unfortunately the Y's there, and I also did the one for Loudon. I don't know why it is, but that's what it is. We don't want to see our subdivision become what others subdivisions can. Sir, wouldn't this Y be more equivalent to the Beaumont Y than to the Y on Loudoun? Would not this YMCA be more equivalent to the Beaumont YMCA than the one downtown? Probably. I didn't get a chance to get Beaumont. I ran out of time. Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to be unfair. So anyway, that's, these people paid between $350,000 and $800,000 for their homes. They're really concerned and they have every right to be. They don't want their neighborhood turning to other places that they've seen turn that, you know, nobody likes or wants to put up with. So I don't know if there's anything I missed, but I hope I said as much as I could for everybody. and somebody else will probably want to talk to you too but that's all i have to say very good well thank you all right is there anyone else that would like to like to come up and speak hi i'm donna ensminger i too am concerned about the traffic um we The Pascoli is parallel with I-75. Right now, the speed zones are about synonymous on some days. It is a 25-mile-an-hour zone, and there are days that people drive 60 miles an hour through our neighborhood. I have been to soccer games because I have grandchildren. And when you let people park on Pasquale and mothers are getting their children out of those cars and there is more than one child. And if she parks on the opposite side of Pasquale and there are three children to get out of the car and they're excited to go to a game, one of them is going to get away. and one of them may get hit, please do not let them park on Pasquale. Please make them go to the parking lot. I would love to see a fence there. Mr. Haymaker, I've been told by Mr. Todd, has put restrictions that there cannot be a fence around the Y. Mr. Haymaker has changed his mind, but it would be a YMCA is like McDonald's. It's a safe place. Make it stay safe. Please do not let them park on Pasquale. It is not a safe street for the children to be on. Do not let them park on Pasquale. Anybody else? Actually, I think we... I apologize. I had two questions for staff. I guess one is jurisdictional. Do we have any authority over street parking in connection with this application? application? On an existing public street, no, I do not think that you do. Traffic engineering, Casey, can you, I believe it would be the urban county council or possibly traffic engineering that would have that authority. Correct. I would caution restricting the parking on Pascoli. Pascoli and Old Rosebud are both built to collector standards. That means it's a wide pavement. If you remove the parking there, the cars will speed up and increase. That's just a function. You know, wider pavement, they're going to go faster. So I would not suggest remove the parking. So you're saying that parking on the street will slow down the traffic and make it safer than if no parking is there? Is that what I understand? It definitely is because it makes the driving lane narrow smaller and so it's just a perception if the lane is smaller you're going to go slower okay um did you have any concern about safety issues or traffic issues in this application? I do not. The adjacent streets are capable of handling the traffic. It is close to the intersection. So if there was a concern with getting out of the car, walk on the sidewalk to the intersection, cross, and access the lot that way. Okay. Thank you. The other, my other question, I guess maybe more appropriate to Mr. Todd. What is this piece of remnant property being used for right now? I did not have a chance to get out there. I went out there yesterday. It is, in my opinion, neighbors may agree, it's just a big pile of dirt and weeds right now. It's the very last four and a half acres, I think, in a 78-acre parcel at Hamburg, all of which has been developed. And then, of course, when Mr. Gatton owned this land, he donated the 10-acre site that we're building the YMCA on. So this is land that we could acquire that's right next to us. It's the last part. But right now, it's just being used for construction purposes for Wilburn. And as part of our plan, of course, we're going to grade this out. We're going to put in a storm sewer that would kind of go diagonally across that property and then tie in at the back of the property and down into the creek. and then we're going to bury that so that that will be out of the way. We're going to grade this out, and it will be a flat, you know, basically playing surface for kids. Now, I was going to address – did I address your – Yeah, yeah, thank you. Mr. Blubber. I was going to address a couple of things that were raised in the e-mails. This isn't Commonwealth Stadium or Great American Ballpark. We're not going to have a lot of fertilizer and chemicals or anything running off here. I mean, we're going to grade it. We're going to seed it. We're going to straw it. It's for little kids to play. And I do mean little kids. This isn't going to be 16-year-olds out there playing soccer. This is going to be U8 and U6, if you all are familiar with that term, and t-ball is what it's going to be used for, plus a pavilion. There's already a pavilion, I understand, at the Latter-day Saints Church. It's probably not more than 100. Is that the white box? Yeah, that white box you see on the map just on the other side of the creek is a pavilion. And so I don't know why a criminal element would pick our pavilion out any more than any other. We obviously don't want that any more than anybody else. And we haven't designed this property. One of the things, as you all know, in our application is that we don't have the money to build it right now. So we've asked for a three-year extension on the normal one-year Board of Adjustment application. application, but if we end up putting bathrooms in there, we would see that they're locked up at the close of the day so that nobody can get in there at night. Because we don't want, we agree with them. We don't want other people coming out there. And Mr. Emmons or staff, do we have, I assume we have the authority or jurisdiction to extend that from one year to three years if we choose? Yes, sir, you do. Okay. And there will not be any lights on this field, on these fields. As to the fence, with Mr. Haymaker, would the fence go down Pasquale, down the sidewalk, or how would—oh, there will not be a fence? Mr. Gross, Mr. Haymaker and his attorney, Glenn Hoskins, we spent a lot of time negotiating this contract. Mr. Haymaker is a very shrewd negotiator, as I'm sure many of you all would agree. He has a vision of this subdivision that he wants to preserve. He does not want fences or walls or vinyl side of fence or anything built on this property. When it comes to the pavilion, he absolutely is going to insist. He's made it crystal clear. He's going to insist that this pavilion be built in keeping with the neighborhood. Now, we haven't sent him a set of plans, but he's got the right of prior approval. We're also going to be a member of the East Point Homeowners Association, be paying dues, and I think most of the people here are members of that. So we'll have an opportunity in the homeowners association setting to discuss any further concerns. But all I can tell you is that's what he wants. It's his subdivision. He developed it. That's what he imposed on us as a condition of buying this property, and we agreed to it. We've already signed the contract. I might have just a question as well. Have you addressed the timing, or can you address the timing of the events? I've seen there were some letters of opposition about the timing of the events. Well, Mr. Forster, there would be no – we don't have any lights, so it will end at dusk. These are little kids. Being a veteran of raising two little kids, you can't get them up real early in the morning. So I would assume they wouldn't be playing before 8 or 9, 9.30 is what David's telling me. Not at dawn, that's for sure. I have a daughter. She plays soccer for the Y. When I show up in Shelby Park at 839 o'clock across behind the Walmart there on Richmond Road, the parking is very busy. I mean, everyone's parking in the grass. I don't know how many teams are scheduled, but it is an issue. and there's surplus parking into the neighborhood. I've parked there. So, I mean, the why soccer and why tee ball is successful. It will bring, if it's consistent with what the program we're in, it does bring quite a bit of traffic. I don't know what the number of parking spaces are for a Saturday morning necessary for if you have an additional, as you said, 100 spaces. You know, what is necessary for that type of event? I don't know. Sure. Have you done any studies there? Yeah. Well, first off, I'd like to speak to you a little bit about the programming model in terms of how we're providing youth sports throughout our city. Our primary two locations today for youth sports. Excuse me, David. Would you state your name? I'm sorry. David Martorano, I'm the president and CEO of the YMCA. Okay. Our model today for youth sports is we use two key locations today, the North Lexington YMCA, where we have abundance of parking and field space. and then also at Southland Christian Church, where we run the fields there. Part of the plan with this site is specifically, and Mr. Todd mentioned it, this is specifically for the Pee Wee programs three to five years of age. This field is not big enough, nor will it be designed for any of the programs that you're referencing. Our hope long-term would be to work with the local new high school that's going in and utilize and access their fields for any of the programming that you're describing. and we're in the process of that conversation right now. So it's just that three- to five-year-old age group, the real small kids for that program. And how many teams would there be in the three- to five-year-old range? Typically, at any given time, there would only be two teams playing at a time based on the model of the field. Yeah, so looking at your design, it looks like there's only one field. Is there going to be two fields or is it going to be just one field? And so you can play two teams? And it's really not. To state it's a field is a little over-exaggeration because of the size. We put on there, I think it was a nine-under field because we needed to present something to you all. It actually will be smaller than that with portable goals because our kids don't play on that size of field. Can I ask, would you be opposed to another condition that it is only going to be peewee kids that use this facility, that use this field? For the sports programs, yes. The thing that I'm concerned about is that initially you see three- to five-year-olds, and I certainly believe you. I'm a big fan of the why. But, you know, if I'm a neighbor, you know, I want to make sure that this is not going to be used for middle school kids or high school kids or other activities. And, you know, small children, it's, I think, a different issue. And I just wanted to ask if we did move on this, would you be opposed to limiting it and having a condition that it would only be peewee kids? For sports programs, definitely not a problem at all. The purpose of all the green space, too, when you talk about the camp shelter, would be to providing the summer day camp, which is some of the older age groups. But those kids won't all be on that green space at one time. They could be in the gymnasium of the Y. They could be in the pool, et cetera. So with the caveat that kids beyond the age of five could use that green space for other Y programs. For the sports program specifically, we would agree to that. I'm not sure that we need to micromanage the use that severely. I trust the YMCA. I would trust the YMCA with my kids I have in the past. I'm not that concerned. In fact, I would think it's more likely that you get more traffic with kids, with younger kids, than you would get with older kids, just because younger kids always have to have a parent to bring them there. So I'm concerned that we're micromanaging the operation unnecessarily, and I just hate to put unnecessary restrictions, something like that. I don't share that concern with other members of the board that we need that kind of restriction. Just my two cents. As there are counsel, I would probably tend to agree with Mr. Glover, although, as we all know, lawyers make recommendations, clients make decisions. So if Mr. Monterano says he'll do it, then he'll do it. You know, it goes without saying, I'm glad somebody kicked me. We're in agreement with the staff recommendations. I don't know if that's been formally stated for the record, but we certainly agree with the staff recommendations. I do have another question about the staff recommendation, and it may involve you, Mr. Todd. So the staff report says hopefully, should the YMCA purchase the property, it will continue the sidewalk that they're constructing as a part of the new facility at the corner. I don't understand that because condition number five talks about the sidewalk along Paschal Place to be constructed. So those two sound inconsistent. Maybe it's a lawyer in me. I apologize. It was not meant to be inconsistent. The reason why it's worded that way in the staff report, one of the basic things to understand about this application is that there are two properties. The YMCA building parking lot, the main YMCA, is on a separate lot that is currently zoned P1. It's allowed by Wright. It's under construction today. The property that's before you is highlighted in the yellow, and it's just for the fields that would be added on to the YMCA facility. What we were trying to point out in the staff report that obviously the cheapest time, the most expedient time to finish that sidewalk in front of this property is as they're constructing and building the sidewalk for the main YMCA campus. However, the condition of approval that we are recommending, we are recommending that just at a, before they are allowed to use the property that's before you, the one in yellow, that we expect that sidewalk to be in. So we're not trying to, you know, force their hands. We understand that they're asking for three years in all of that. It's just when we said hopefully it will be built with the construction of the YMCA, that was just a logical, as they're outpouring sidewalk, It would be the easiest, best time to continue that sidewalk. And, again, I don't want to micromanage, but what's the applicant's intent? I think we're going to finish the sidewalk, right? Yeah, we're going to do that. He's right. We've talked about that. We're going to put the sidewalk on through Pascoe to where it connects up to the residential portion of the property. It's only about 230 or 40 feet. It's not a huge expense, so we're going to go ahead and do that. The recommended condition is just the last step, saying that even if they don't want to build it with the rest of the construction, we don't want this site being used for the YMCA purposes without the sidewalk, even if they build it at a later date. And that's what I, the way I interpreted it as well, I just wanted to make sure that we were all interpreting it the same. The other question I had was about, there was a mention of a trail, a proposed trail, well, actually two other things. What about this trail located on the other side of the creek that will not impact? Is this part of the application, or is this just? It is not part of the application. Our green space planner had mentioned during the review of this that there is planned to be a multi-use trail that goes along the floodplain area that you see highlighted in the blue on there. So you're concerned about the YMCA construction interfering with that? No, sir, not at all. I'm not concerned about anything. That condition right there is really intended just to put everybody on notice that there is a planned multi-use trail. For them, right now, the trail is not designed. It is expected that it will be on the other side of the creek from the YMCA's property and likely will not have any impact whatsoever. It's really just trying to, you know, kind of put a tickler out there so that at any time, if plans do have to change once they get into the design, that the city might be coming to the YMCA to discuss the multi-use trail. It doesn't, it was, it's not recommended, it doesn't force either the city or the applicant. It's more of a put everybody on notice type of condition. Fair enough, and I think it's appropriately placed in the conditions as well. My last question really is to the applicant. The bottom of the first page of the staff report talks about the applicant has proposed measures to mitigate potential noise or other disturbance. And what are those? Well, primarily the lack of lights, the fact that this is not going to be primarily used athletically for older children, and then we're going to be required to screen the adjoining residential properties with, I think they referred to, and I'm quoting from memory, I think it's evergreen trees centered on 15 feet along the property line so that they won't necessarily be looking at kids playing ball. Yeah, that's right. That's it. That's the staggered screening that's mentioned in the report. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. Thanks. Ms. Whitton, did you? I do from the letters and what's been said here I think my issue is the parking the traffic and the parking and I'd like for you to tell us what parking is available for this activity that's not on Pascoli well as I said I believe earlier the site has a hundred if you're familiar with the Beaumont site which is a big I mean I was a member of the Beaumont Y for many years when I lived over there. It's a big site, has a big parking lot. This facility is essentially the same size and it has a hundred additional spaces. Okay. A hundred additional spaces. Yeah. Uh, and the, the ball fields, as you're looking at this, I say ball fields, soccer fields, whatever you're going to call them are to the right. And you know, my belief would be, and recommendation would be, if I'm the manager of that facility is when people are playing Saturday morning to have all the parents park in a designated area and then let them just walk through the tree canopy at the back of our parking lot onto the fields and play soccer. Sir, I think I can add to this. I've got the approved development plan for the YMCA in front of me. And according to this development plan, the YMCA required 112 parking spaces, and they are providing 334. So there's closer to 200. That's three times the size recommended. So would there actually be a path constructed where it would be easy for them and to make it? Well, I mean, to me, if you're talking about using the parking, I guess what I'm thinking is the back parking area there literally, I mean, our ball fields are 20 yards at most. I mean, you're parking, getting out of your car and taking 10 steps, and you're on the field, I think. Well, I would like to see a cut-through developed so that it, I mean, it's not a big deal. No, it's not. Again, I'm doing just what one of my fellow commissioners said that he didn't want to do, but it seems to me that if you're going to encourage parking there, which I would like to see you do, which would satisfy perhaps some of the people that are opposed to the amount of traffic and the parking on Pasquale, that you would promote that connection and promote the ease in getting from that parking lot over to the other. Understand. As I understand, there's not going to be an obstruction between parking and the field. No, we can't put a fence up. Okay. I think the only fence, David said, is around the pool area. And that's, of course, state law. You have to have. And, Mr. Todd, are you able to, instead of putting in a fence, does Mr. Haymaker restrict a hedge on that street? I couldn't tell you off the top of that. I will tell you just from my sense of driving around that subdivision, the same as everybody else has in this room, I don't see a bunch of hedges right along the public right away, and I bet you he would not want that. And the reason I'm asking is I know over the Beaumont why a lot of the commercial units have hedges rather than fences that separate one from the other. So we weren't sure if you could put some kind of screening up against the road that would violate the conditions. I don't know the answer to that question. My belief is he probably would not be in favor of that, but could be wrong. Has the development plan been shared with the homeowners association? Yes. Especially about, I think it was Ms. Ensminger mentioned about the traffic. That was a big issue for her, and Joan mentioned it as well. So I just wondered why I shared that with the homeowners association. You mean the original development plan? Yeah, just maybe trying to reassure them that you're going to try to gear traffic away. It was a public record. I mean, I assume it was. Certainly, we didn't hide it from anybody. there's a guy yes sir i'm sorry what did that miss he wants to come up okay we'll let him come up i i think i'll probably adequately address okay thank you thank you mr stein yes sir did you want to make comment I appreciate you letting me come up here and address an issue. I've heard about the parking. I strongly disagree with the young lady over there about parking on both sides will slow traffic down. But I've got one question, if Tommy doesn't mind me asking it. they're talking about how many parking spaces they've got at the Y property. How many members are anticipated to belong to that Y? David, can you... Let me rephrase that. How many members are there at the Y at Beaumont? Good question. You could come on up to the... At any given time, I'm not sure, but the total membership, about 16,000 participants. At Beaumont? That's for three. At the Beaumont Y, but certainly with our parking, we probably have 250 to 300 at any given time, tops. Well, I've been told, maybe not by a reliable source, but they anticipate somewhere in the neighborhood of about 4,000 members, of which I and Donna will be a member. I'm not opposed to the Y being there. I'm opposed to the traffic pattern. We've got a school on Winchester Road that's going to dump partially into our area of 17,000, 18,000 students in the year 2017. Not before you today, but soon to come before you all today, there will be at the other end of Cardushi a daycare going on the corner of Cardushi. and Sir Barton Way. We don't know what kind of traffic are we looking at at both of these intersections coming into our subdivision. I think it really needs to be addressed. I don't think the board probably has the authority to sit there and say no parking. But I think if the Y was in support of no parking on Pascoe, the city probably would give a lot of consideration to that. And all I'm asking is at least protect us to the extent that you can protect us. And I know you all got a big, big job. I sat on that board for 16 years. Okay, so I know what you're going through. But give us a little help and a little consideration, please. Thank you, sir. Well, and to that point, obviously, we cannot, we cannot, I'll just give me a moment here. But we cannot restrict no parking on Pascoli. So that's something that the Y would have to address with the city. That is not something that's within our jurisdiction. But we certainly understand the concerns. And, sir, did you have something that you would like to add? I'm sorry. I did not realize until just now they're putting up an outdoor swimming pool. The noise that that's going to make. I had no clue. I was in there looking at the picture, and I go, I don't know what that is. And somebody said something about pool, and I looked. I said, it's a woman pool outside right next to the neighborhood. We didn't get any information on that. We got a letter about a Y, but I didn't recall seeing any information on a pool. Well, that wasn't the thing that's already approved. Sir, address us here, please. Excuse me. But I didn't know anything about a pool. Mr. Chairman, it's not part of the application that's before the board. That pool and the rest of the buildings you're seeing on the overhead now are in the professional office zone. And in that zone, community center and their parking and other facilities are all principal permitted uses. So there's not a conditional use permit necessary for that aspect of the use. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. Sure. Thank you, sir. All right. Ms. Meyer. Thank you. My concern is the parking. I mean, and how can you, if the number of parking spaces is not sufficient for this Y, how can it be expanded? Is there some allowance in the plan for that? I thought I understood that we were comparing this to the Beaumont Y, which this Y is going to be about the same size. The Beaumont Y has 200-and-something parking places. This place has about 300-and-something parking places. So I'm not sure. I don't understand what the concern about parking is from the board. It seems like they've overplanned for parking, if I'm understanding it correctly, and maybe that's because of the field that's under consideration today. Is that what I'm – am I reading that correctly? That there's a whole lot more parking at this Y than there is in Beaumont. That's correct. And they're essentially the same size facility. Okay. Does any other members of the board have anything for the applicant or the opposition or for staff? I would just like to make just one comment. I understand the neighbors' concerns about side street parking, but I live across the street from Lafayette High School. And I don't know if we have as much parking as this parking is going to have for SCAP events. And generally, the parking, it comes in and it comes out. And for the most part, it's a nuisance during those time periods. But it sounds to me, and having had kids in the Y's soccer program, that they don't play. They play like from 9 to noon on Saturdays. So I think that the parking, overflow parking for what we're looking at and what they're proposing to do, I think it's going to be a limited nuisance at most. That's just my only comment to the situation. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Well, we've heard from the applicant. We've heard from opposition. we've heard from the staff and asked several questions, I'd like to ask the board's pleasure. If someone would like to make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve C-2015-70 YMCA of Central Kentucky LLC, appeal for a conditional use permit to develop and use the property as part of the adjoining YMCA in the Planned Neighborhood Residential R3 zone at 2625 Sir Barton Way, also known as 2240 Pascali Place in Council District 6, based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the conditions proposed by staff and agreed to by the applicant. Do we have to mention the fact that they've asked for a three-year instead of a one-year? That is noted in Condition No. 7. But I will amend my motion to specifically say that the applicant shall have up to three years to exercise this conditional use permit. No mistake. I'll second the motion. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Thank you, Mr. Glover. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Please note, Ms. Meyer, opposed. So obviously the conditional use permit has passed the board. We wish you all very well and hope that it all works out for the neighbors. And thank you all for your time, for being here today. As Mr. M. Singer had mentioned, this can sometime be a very challenging job sitting behind here. And we wish the Y well and the neighborhood well. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. The last item, I believe, on the agenda, we had asked the zoning enforcement to give us an update on property located at 7524 Old Richmond Road. And so I'd like to, Mr. Marks, we'd like to give you the opportunity, and we'll give the opposition an opportunity to speak as well. Thank you. Mr. Forrester, I know that you and Mr. Glover recuse yourself the last time on this. And we're going to recuse again, so we'll step out. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Call us when you're done. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Mr. Varks. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board members. What I just handed out, we just got this morning, so I apologize for getting it to you kind of late. It's an update from the representative of the property owner, kind of giving a summary of what's been going on from their end. You might want to take a moment just to kind of briefly go through that. It's just one page, so there's a few bullets relating to what they've done with having to do a stormwater management analysis. for Division of Engineering, information about POG engineering and the structural assessment of the building, purchase orders relating to replacing some panels along the roof that have caved in, and their efforts to work with District 7, Department of Transportation, that relates to the access to Old Richmond Road that has to be approved by the Transportation Cabinet. So they have been working to get all this stuff in the works. I think it's taken more time than they anticipated because of things like having to do the stormwater analysis. They weren't expecting that. They've also been advised by traffic engineering that they'll need a much more detailed site plan that has specifications and dimensions for them for traffic engineering to do their review. So that's all been in the works. Beyond that, I think since there are several new board members here that really haven't had much experience with this whole concept of revocation and revocation hearings, just to real briefly kind of give some perspective on that. It's a rare event. It's something that's done as a last resort when there's an active use underway that's not complying with conditions and there's no expectation that they'll ever be able to comply with the conditions. So the two criteria there that have historically come into play are an active use underway and no expectation that they'll be ever able to comply with the conditions. There have only been two revocations in the past four years, so it is a very rare event. Both of those cases involve very active uses, and there was no expectation that they could comply with the conditions. One was Community Inn on Winchester Road. It was approved by the board as a conditional use for a church. It was used as a homeless shelter. The other was the quarry on Georgetown Road. Same thing, very active use. It was approved by the board many years ago as a conditional use for a composting operation. It was used more as a quarry, and that conditional use was revoked. So those are the two in the past four years. this situation before you today is very dissimilar from that there's no active use going on in that property right now there was briefly for a time in the fall a company that came in and did occupy the building and that's why we issued the notice of violation they have since departed and vacated the property so now we're back to it being vacant with no active use underway beyond that I need to talk a little bit about the building because I think that's a big concern with some of the neighbors that are hopeful somehow this process will end up with that building being removed I just need to kind of forewarn you that even if you did decide to have a revocation hearing and did ultimately decide to revoke the conditional use there's no guarantee that that building is going to be removed there's no condition that the board applied when it was approved as a conditional use in 2006 regarding removal of that building if the use is discontinued. So the only way for that building to come down is if the property owner voluntarily agrees to dismantle it and maybe rebuild it somewhere else or just take it down, or if it's not maintained to the point where the Division of Code Enforcement could condemn it and then have it removed through their process that they go through with condemnation. So I just want to make sure it's clear in your head that revoking the condition of use doesn't mean that building is going to be removed and i think that's a big concern with with some of the neighbors is just that building there it's very slightly it's right on the edge pretty much of old richmond road that's pretty much what i have at this point i know that dr gonneau has a letter that she wants to speak and hand out to you and i'd like the opportunity to respond to some of that okay thank you mr marks thank you like to ask of the neighbors if they'd like to come up and state your name for the record please dr lisa gonneau this is my third straight month being here uh i guess what i'll say is it's become increasingly difficult to know how to prepare for these meetings because i've been trying to get some updates about this project since december 3rd on december 3rd i contacted jim duncan and planning and talked to him on the phone and he did not have any update on this project at that time on monday the 7th i contacted mr marks um we played a bit of phone tag he left me a voicemail message back that there was really not much to report on this other than the folks met with engineering and about what might be needed to move forward with a storm water management plan but that's all he had to report and then on the 9th this wednesday i spoke with the vice mayor who had talked to mr marks earlier in the day and i believe it was the vice mayor's understanding that the folks had decided that they were not going to move forward with this project and because nobody was occupying the building that it might become a code enforcement issue that it could sit there and so i spoke to him a little bit about that he was under the impression that the board of adjustment at that point could not take any action on that, that it would be a code issue. So it's a little bit interesting to come here and get this update today because that is not at all what I had been told on Wednesday. So I did not realize how much had moved forward. And then on the day that I spoke with the vice mayor, I see that the MICA group had spoken to the District 7 Transportation Office. I would just like to say that I have got some issues with this after the fact permitting. When I looked at the original application, the architect for this building was listed as the Greenhouse Company, which I contacted. And the Greenhouse Company had a record of supplying the materials. They hung two heaters for this property, but had no record that they had put the structure up or how the gas lines got there. Nobody seems to know how the electrical got there or the plumbing because there's no record of these issues. And the person who was listed as the building contractor on this original permit, when I did an open records request, they did not pull any permits in 06, 07, or 08. So it's really kind of a mystery to me how this structure got there and the safety of this building, especially if there is gas and electric and plumbing. So the after-the-fact permitting is very concerning to me. I do believe that all of the variances that were necessary were not sought for this project, And I did list that in my letter. And the reason I created that letter for today was based on the information that I had on Wednesday because it was my impression on Wednesday that this structure was going to kind of continue to sit there. I've been told, and it came up at the last meeting, that there are revised plans and different things for this property. I have not seen those revised plans. I have asked my councilman, the 12th District Councilman, for that and have not received that. I've asked both council at large members for that and have not received that. I would like to know if the revised plans are different than what was proposed in 2006. I would like to know if they're planning on making any changes to the drive, because originally they had asked for a loop driveway. It got changed to a single driveway. I have no idea what they're asking for now. I have no idea how many people they're planning on having at this greenhouse because originally in the paperwork, it appeared that there was going to be one employee at this place, which kind of makes sense to me if you're just there attending to the plants occasionally in a commercial greenhouse. So I really, I think I deserve this information in order to move forward. I really would like to see, you know, what they're planning to do with this property because basically they're getting like a do-over. They're getting ready. They're, you know, basically getting to start all over again. We were given that December 1st date. That's come and gone. They really have not acted in good faith in this process, so I'm not sure how straightforward they're going to be moving forward, especially if the neighbors really don't know what they're intending to do at this site. And I really don't know what else to tell you at this point. I have given you a copy of Councilman Maloney's support in this as well, and I've provided some photos of the current state of the property. And I know some things were listed in the email today about the roof panels, but there are roof panels falling in. I do think that this is a safety issue. I would like to thank you all for your service because as I've sat here for the last three months, I've realized you guys hear a variety of interesting cases and you have some you do have some very tough decisions to make and Apparently as you see these do have long-lasting implications because this case was from 2006. I thank you for your time Thank you, dr. Good now Dr. Martin, did you want to address them? sir charles martin 74 16 crimes mill road i have little to add except to reiterate december 1 was the drop dead date they got until december 1 to get this all fixed not only did they have it all fixed by december 1 they had nothing fixed by december 1 and had made no plans or efforts to get anything fixed. They contacted the Department of Transportation on December the 9th. That was more than a week after the drop-dead date, which was more than two weeks after or maybe a month after they'd been towed. So in the past we've not, I don't believe they've really been entirely straightforward with us, and I don't think they've operated in good faith. I have no reason to believe they will operate in good faith in the future. Aside, my question is, do they really have a conditional use permit? It's a use permit with conditions. The conditions were never met. why are we trying to revoke a permit that was never really finalized? I would think they should apply for a conditional use permit at this point. Ms. Jones, would you like to comment on that? Obviously, the board approved a conditional use permit back in 2006. With conditions? It's my understanding, based on what has occurred here, is that there was a conditional use permit issued with certain conditions, and that either a part or some of those were, you know, as evidenced even by maybe some of the pictures you have here, were starting to be put in place. And then there was some issue after the land use restrictions were recorded that some of those conditions may or may not have been met. There may have been a period of some kind of vacancy going on there. I'm not really sure Mr. Marks may have a better way to explain that to me. But once the conditional use permit is issued and there's some kind of action that takes place, it doesn't just automatically go away. And so, you know, at that point, it can either be revoked, which, you know, we've talked about that before. We can talk about it more today if you'd like under what the ordinance requires. There's also, you know, the goal has typically been to bring a property into compliance if there are problems. Also, though, you know, a property that has no active use going on it isn't typically considered to be in violation. So I think that's sort of what has transpired here. You know, I'd certainly defer to anything else because Mr. Marcus has personally investigated it, obviously, more than I have. But I think that's what's going on. So I think there is a conditional use permit on this property. But whether or not, you know, what stage it's in and how it should be handled at this point is, you know, what we're talking about. Mr. March, do you have anything to add to that? There's some discussion about this one-year window. It was clearly exercised within that one-year window. They got an original building permit for the greenhouse building. They started construction. At some point, they stopped. I don't know why. That permit was ultimately voided, and the building was completed. Now, I don't know if it was 95% complete when it got voided or what all those details are, but the conditional use has been exercised. What about the other conditions? The driveway, the offsets, the screenings? There's no question that none of that got done. They did not meet their conditions within a year. There's no argument there. Within nine years. No argument there. Okay. So do they have a conditional use permit? My question goes back. You said today they have, oh, three years to meet the conditions. It's a conditional use permit. You can do this if you do this. If you don't, meet the conditions. My answer is yes. They have a conditional use permit because they began exercising. Not every condition has to come into play. So we're dealing with a conditional use permit that's on the property. The land use restrictions have been recorded in the county clerk's office. And the question today is, what are we going to do with it going forward? So then when you get a conditional use permit, you will ask the applicant, do you agree to abide by these conditions? And the applicant just must say, oh, certainly. And you say, fine. And that's the end of it? Well, no, and Mr. Martin, I'm not really going to argue about this, but this is the way the process works. I mean, not every condition goes in place immediately, but typically we have been monitoring those, and if there is some in the things that Mr. Marks described, if they come into play in that year and the land use restrictions get recorded, from that point forward, what we're dealing with is, is the conditional use permit that's in place being followed? And that's where we are today. Okay. Well, then I would have to just ask that you vote for a revocation hearing then if we have a conditional use permit. Otherwise, they could apply for a conditional use permit. Doctor, go ahead, Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones, just educate me real quickly. So somebody, we approve a conditional use permit. And at that point, the staff monitors, and within the year, they deem enough stuff has occurred, and the permit's issued, and then LUR is recorded at the county clerk's office. Is that generally how it works, guys? Generally, the land use restriction form is recorded within a month after all of the uses, all of the cases that you approved today, we will prepare the land use restriction form and follow those. And they record the conditions in which you approved it on. The applicant then, the ball is in their court to meet the conditions and come in and get the proper permits and do everything of that nature. But as far as when the board approves the permit, they've approved the conditional use permit or the variance or whatever case is before you. You've approved it, and then the land use restriction form is just the paperwork that gets filed to let everyone on the public record know that the board has taken action and this particular property has some additional restrictions on it. So upon our vote, the applicant has a conditional use permit at that point. And then the one year... The one year comes from the KRS-100, the state enabling legislation, and it is also mirrored in our local zoning ordinance in Article 7. it says that for any conditional use permit that has not been exercised in the time limit set by the board or within one year if no specific time limit has been set and then the conditional it goes on to say KRS 100 that the conditional use permit shall not revert to its original designation unless there's been a public hearing so it doesn't it stays with the land unless you have a revocation hearing now there are some over the many years there are some uh conditional uses that were approved with null and void conditions on them you know if if this then this becomes null and void and so those those conditional uses as a condition kind of don't carry on because of the way it was done we had one earlier this year that actually had an expiration date. The board approved it with a one-year use. So at the end of that one year, in order to meet that condition, that became null and void. So obviously those specific types of conditions would comply on a particular case. Those types of things did not occur in 2006 with this particular case. And then this may be for Ms. Jones. So in this instance, A nursery, a plant nursery commercial greenhouse was approved as a conditional use, but it could still be used for whatever its zoning use is. It's not effective. This is just additional use they could use on the property. But as long as they're not using it as a plant nursery commercial greenhouse, then they can't be in violation of the conditions. Is that correct? I think that's correct. In fact, there's a difference between not using it for that and using it for something else. Correct. They couldn't store the lawn care equipment that was told to vacate the premises because that was not in the right zoning and it wasn't part of the conditional use. Right. They can't just take a conditional use, and we've had, as some of you may recall, this raised before as well, where a new or the same owner takes a conditional use permit and stretches out that use to something that is very different or entirely different or somewhat different but not what's in the conditional use. But just not doing anything doesn't mean you're in violation necessarily. also, like you said, the underlying zoning, any use that's covered in that, is always allowed with a conditional use permit or not. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Dr. Gannon, you want to say something? I'd just like to clear up, too, the land use restrictions were not filed until this November, I believe, when I started asking for a copy of those. They had not been filed since 2006. And I believe that's because everybody thought that this project was not going anywhere. There was a question last time about agricultural use. And the definition of agricultural use, you have to have five contiguous acres. This property is 1.4 acres with a 6,000-square-foot greenhouse. And again, I think it's important to point out that I don't think that all of the variances that they should have gotten on this property were obtained. And I think that's important. And I have a little bit of a disagreement about the one-year thing being exercised because that's why I'm questioning how it was completed. I mean, sure, there's a building there, but how did it get there? I think that's really important to understand about this one-year period. And I've been looking at Article 7 of the zoning ordinance, and it says in here, the board may approve, modify, or deny any application for a conditional use permit. The board shall have the power to revoke conditional use permits for noncompliance with the condition thereof. Furthermore, the board shall have the right of action to compel offending structures or uses removed at the cost of the violator and may have judgment in personum for such cost. So that's different than, I think, what Mr. Mark says about even if you guys voted for that, that the building couldn't come down because that's not what I read in the zoning ordinance. And it says, if the landowner is not complying with all the conditions listed in the conditional use permit, The Division of Planning shall report that fact in writing to the chairman of the Board of Adjustment The board shall hold a hearing on the report within a reasonable time And notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be furnished to the landowner at least one week prior to the hearing I've asked for this hearing three times now. It was reported at the last meeting that Since 2007 every year this business this this property had been reported as out of business And basically I disagree with that too because it was never exercised it was never utilized and I don't understand why nothing's been done For this because we did find and I put this in the letter in 2009 letters went to Then mayor Newberry and then vice mayor and Jim Gray at the time And so there's a long record of folks complaining about this property Thank you, dr. Cannell um does any board members have any other questions um obviously it's a very challenging issue and i'm certainly for the neighborhoods and after listening mr marsh and mr jones and and uh obviously i i'm not i'm not prepared to you know to i i don't think that we we certainly have the authority to hold a revocation hearing but under the circumstances and and uh and the seriousness of revocation hearings, as you heard. We've only had two in the last four years. And I don't think that this constitutes a revocation hearing at this point in time. You know, Ms. Gonneau, we just saw this for the first time today ourselves. So one of the things that we talked about at the last meeting was, you know, was the owner going to make a good faith effort? And we do, we are seeing, Dr. Martin, some, you know, some movement on this. And I'm just not prepared today to schedule or vote for a revocation hearing. Again, there's not an illegal use going on. It's nonactive. I know it's been frustrating. I was out at the building yesterday and walked all around it, and it is an eyesore. There's no question about it. And I would like to see the MICA group move forward on their word to bring this property up to the conditions in business that we had originally. Of course, I wasn't on the board in 2006, but I would like to see them continue, Mr. Marks, making these improvements. And I take them, again, at good faith, at finally seeing something. Dr. Gonneau, you've been at this for some time, and I emphasize with you. But I just don't think that I don't want to be put in a position to hold a revocation hearing because I think that there's a lot of other issues at hand, and I think we could find ourselves in some very, I don't know, even more serious complications. So I'd like to go ahead and, of course, if the board agrees or not agrees or if you have any comments, but I would like to go ahead and ask Mr. Marks to continue to monitor us on this property. I'm finally seeing some things going forward. And, folks, you know, I agree with you. I think that something needs to be done with this property. It's been sitting there for some time. It is an eyesore coming up Old Richmond Road. And I would like to hold the MICA group accountable to do something with this that meets the conditions that they were originally granted in 2006. And I'd like to ask Mr. Marks if you would communicate that to the MICA group and come back at our January meeting and we'll go forward from there. But I'll tell you, we're hearing you loud and clear. And so anyway, we'll move forward. We're going to put this on our agenda again in January. We will ask again like we did, Ms. Whitman, like we did. This was a board item originally, and we will ask that it be considered a board item. Is that acceptable, Mr. Marks? That's fine. You probably do need to start thinking about, even beyond that, what the future of this is, because the normal process is for staff to initiate a request for revocation. I'm sorry. Say that again, Mr. Marks. The normal process is for staff to initiate with you all a request for a revocation hearing based on our assessment that there's an active use underway that's not complying with the conditions that comes from staff normally. Thank you, Ms. Marks. And if they are planning to move forward, I would really like to see a copy of what the plan is. Can I get that? We'd be happy to get you stuff as we get it. Because he's out of state. You know, we'd be happy to do that, but we've already been criticized today for not getting you something that I just got this morning. So there's got to be some reasonableness here about when you get things. It's all in flux right now. I don't even get it directly. They work directly with traffic engineering in some cases. They work directly with engineering in some cases. We don't control that. That's a very different story than when I got on Wednesday, though. Very different. All right. I could talk to you. Ms. Kiddow, Ms. Whitman, do you have anything else? I have one question for Jim. Do you see that anything has been done? I have the letter here from them that they're proposing this and they've ordered this. And the only thing I see positive is Poet engineers. They've contracted with, I believe it's Palmer Engineering. Thomas might be able to verify this to do the stormwater. assessment. They ordered materials from the greenhouse building company. So you did get the water management analysis? I saw the attachments to that email, the one-page email I handed out. I've looked at those attachments, yes. It was all technical jargon. I didn't see any benefit to y'all seeing that. Thank you, Mr. Marks. But you did receive, you have received, is that the only thing now that you've received that indicates that they are moving forward what's described in that email is what I've got yes alright thank you thank you Ms. Whitman anybody else well Mr. Marks we'll look forward to hearing from you Dr. Gonneau, Dr. Martin thank you all for being here today and you just enjoy the entertainment don't you Ms. Walden so glad to have you here does anybody have any other business the the staff would very much like to uh wish the board a happy holidays we will not meet again until january 29th and i hope that you all have a very happy holidays and safe and i look forward to seeing you again thank you mr immons and mr lee is passing out we'd also like to wish everyone a a very happy holiday and a safe and peaceful new year and thank you all for your time and we'll see you next year. Thank you. Mr. Salih passed out the 2016 schedule. It's already adopted. It's just a copy. We adopted it last month. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Salih. The date of the next meeting, Mr. Glover, is January 29th at 1 30. Thank you, sir. With that said, meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.