# Board of Adjustment - October 28, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 28, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4101 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4101?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-10-28 - **Last revised**: October 28, 2016 - **Length**: 17,538 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 convened on October 28, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Barry Stumbo presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed five agenda items during the session, including variance requests, an administrative review, a conditional use permit application, and a third-party appeal. The board took six votes throughout the meeting and heard two public comments from attendees. Of the five matters considered, two items were approved (the Raleigh Bruner variance request and Nancy Coppinger administrative review), two were tabled for future consideration (TTTT Investment Group variance request and Denise Edmonds conditional use permit), and one was denied (Bill and Kim Read third-party appeal). ## Attendance The following members were present at the October 28, 2016 meeting: • Barry Stumbo • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman (arrived late) • Jan Meyer • Branden Gross • Chad Needham **Absent:** • Larry Forester **Late Arrival:** • Joan Whitman Six of the seven members attended the meeting, with one member absent and one arriving after the scheduled start time. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on six items during the meeting, with most receiving unanimous support. **PLN-BOA-16-00029** - Thomas Glover motioned to postpone the Clays Mill Road Baptist Church conditional use permit request, seconded by Branden Gross. The motion passed by voice vote 5-0, with Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross voting in favor. [timestamp: 00:10] **PLN-BOA-16-00023** - Thomas Glover motioned to continue the TTTT Investment Group variance request, seconded by Branden Gross. The item was tabled by unanimous vote 6-0, with all members present (Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, Branden Gross, and Chad Needham) supporting the motion. [timestamp: 01:15] **PLN-BOA-16-00034** - Jan Meyer motioned to approve the Raleigh Bruner variance request, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to four conditions outlined by staff. All six board members voted in favor. [timestamp: 02:30] **PLN-BOA-16-00032** - Branden Gross motioned to approve the Nancy Coppinger administrative review request, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to three conditions set forth by staff. All board members supported the approval. [timestamp: 03:45] **PLN-BOA-16-00031** - Thomas Glover motioned to continue the Denise Edmonds conditional use permit request, seconded by Jan Meyer. The item was tabled by unanimous vote 6-0, with all members voting to continue the matter. [timestamp: 05:00] **PLN-BOA-16-00033** - Thomas Glover motioned to deny the Bill and Kim Read third party appeal, seconded by Jan Meyer. The motion failed on a roll call vote of 5-1, with Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, and Chad Needham voting in favor of denial, while Branden Gross voted against the motion. [timestamp: 07:30] ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, focusing on specific land use matters before the commission. **Chris Clendenen** [04:30] appeared as an attorney representing parties in opposition to the Denise Edmonds conditional use permit application. Clendenen delivered a PowerPoint presentation arguing against the proposed use, contending that it did not qualify as a lawful non-conforming use under applicable zoning regulations. **Paula Singer** [08:00] spoke regarding the Bill and Kim Read appeal case. Singer raised concerns about the adequacy of oversight mechanisms for facilities that serve vulnerable populations. She also expressed worries about the potential negative impact such facilities could have on surrounding neighborhood property values. Both speakers addressed matters that appeared to be on the commission's agenda for consideration, providing input from community members and legal representatives on pending land use decisions. ## Contested Items Two items on the October 28, 2016 agenda generated significant community opposition and debate. **Denise Edmonds Conditional Use Permit** The application to re-establish a child care facility faced substantial community pushback from residents. The primary concerns centered on parking availability and safety issues in the surrounding neighborhood. Community members voiced opposition to the proposal, citing potential traffic congestion and safety risks associated with increased vehicle activity from parents dropping off and picking up children. The specific outcome of this contentious item was not detailed in the available meeting data. **Bill and Kim Read Third Party Appeal** This appeal challenged a previous decision that would allow a dwelling to house four unrelated persons and up to four handicapped persons. The controversy stemmed from community concerns about the concentration of similar facilities in the neighborhood. Residents expressed worry about what they characterized as "neighborhood saturation" with group living arrangements, suggesting the area already had too many such facilities. The appeal represented organized community opposition to the approved housing arrangement, with neighbors arguing that additional group living situations would negatively impact the residential character of the area. Both contested items reflected broader community tensions around land use decisions, with residents actively participating in the public process to voice their concerns about proposed changes to their neighborhoods. The opposition in both cases focused on quality of life issues, including traffic, safety, and neighborhood character preservation. ## TTTT Investment Group Variance Request [timestamp: 01:15] The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-16-00023, a variance request submitted by TTTT Investment Group to increase the maximum allowable fence height from 4 feet to 5 feet on their property. Timothy W. Vaughn served as the key speaker during the discussion of this variance request. The board engaged in deliberations regarding the proposed height increase and examined the circumstances surrounding the existing fence structure. A significant portion of the discussion centered on the historical height of the fence in question. Board members sought to understand the previous configuration and whether the current fence had been modified from its original specifications. This historical context appeared to be crucial for determining whether the variance request was justified. The board expressed concerns about the adequacy of evidence provided to support the variance application. Members indicated they required additional documentation or proof to substantiate the claims made in the request. The lack of sufficient supporting materials became a key factor in the board's deliberations. After reviewing the available information and discussing the merits of the case, the board determined that the application required further development before a decision could be made. The variance request was ultimately tabled, allowing TTTT Investment Group additional time to gather and present the evidence that board members deemed necessary for proper evaluation. The tabling of this item indicates that while the board was willing to consider the fence height variance, they required more comprehensive documentation to make an informed decision on whether the proposed 5-foot fence height would be appropriate for the property in question. ## Raleigh Bruner Variance Request [timestamp: 02:30] The board considered variance request PLN-BOA-16-00034 submitted by Raleigh Bruner. The request sought to reduce the required distance for overhead doors from the standard zoning requirements. Jason Banks served as the key speaker presenting information about the variance request to the board members. The specific details of the current distance requirements and the proposed reduction were discussed during the presentation. Following the presentation and board discussion, the members voted to approve Raleigh Bruner's variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available meeting materials. The board's decision to grant the variance with conditions suggests they found merit in the request while ensuring appropriate safeguards or requirements remain in place to address any potential concerns related to the reduced overhead door distance requirements. ## Nancy Coppinger Administrative Review [timestamp: 03:45] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-16-00032, an administrative review request submitted by Nancy Coppinger seeking approval to increase the height of an accessory structure on her property. Gene Coppinger spoke on behalf of the applicant during the discussion, presenting the request to the board members. The specific details of the proposed height increase and the nature of the accessory structure were discussed as part of the administrative review process. Following the presentation and board discussion, the members voted to approve Nancy Coppinger's administrative review request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific terms of those conditions were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The board's decision allows the Coppinger property to proceed with the accessory structure height modification as requested, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions of approval. ## Denise Edmonds Conditional Use Permit [timestamp: 05:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-16-00031, a conditional use permit request submitted by Denise Edmonds to re-establish a child care facility. Edmonds presented her proposal to the board during the discussion period. The board raised several concerns regarding the proposed child care facility, focusing primarily on: • **Parking adequacy** - Questions were raised about whether sufficient parking would be available for parents dropping off and picking up children • **Safety considerations** - Board members discussed various safety aspects related to operating a child care facility at the proposed location During the discussion, board members examined the details of Edmonds' application and considered the potential impacts of re-establishing the child care facility. The conversation centered on ensuring that proper infrastructure and safety measures would be in place before approving the conditional use permit. After reviewing the application materials and hearing from Edmonds, the board determined that additional information or consideration was needed before making a final decision on the conditional use permit request. **Outcome:** The board decided to table the discussion, continuing consideration of PLN-BOA-16-00031 to a future meeting. This allows time for further review of the parking and safety concerns that were identified during the initial discussion. The conditional use permit application remains under review, with Edmonds' request to re-establish the child care facility pending resolution of the issues raised by the board. ## Bill and Kim Read Third Party Appeal [timestamp: 07:30] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-16-00033, a third party appeal filed by Bill and Kim Read challenging a previous decision that allowed a dwelling to house four unrelated persons and up to four handicapped persons. Bill Read and Kim Read served as the key speakers presenting their appeal to the board. The Reads contested the original approval, which would permit the residential property to accommodate both unrelated individuals and persons with disabilities in numbers exceeding typical single-family residential use. The appeal centered on the board's earlier decision to grant permission for the expanded occupancy arrangement. The original approval would have allowed the dwelling to house up to four unrelated persons while also accommodating up to four individuals with handicaps, representing a significant increase in the property's residential capacity. During the discussion, the Reads presented their objections to this housing arrangement, though the specific concerns raised during their presentation are not detailed in the available records. The appeal process provided them an opportunity to challenge the board's initial determination and request reconsideration of the occupancy permissions. Following consideration of the appeal and any supporting arguments presented by the Reads, the board ultimately denied their third party appeal. This decision upheld the original approval, meaning the dwelling would be permitted to continue operating under the previously granted terms allowing both the unrelated persons and handicapped individuals to reside at the property. The denial of the appeal represents the board's final determination on this matter, confirming that the expanded residential use would be allowed to proceed as originally approved despite the Reads' objections. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-16-00029** — postponed (5-0): Postpone Clays Mill Road Baptist Church conditional use permit request - **PLN-BOA-16-00023** — tabled (6-0): Continue TTTT Investment Group variance request - **PLN-BOA-16-00034** — passed (6-0): Approve Raleigh Bruner variance request - **PLN-BOA-16-00032** — passed (6-0): Approve Nancy Coppinger administrative review request - **PLN-BOA-16-00031** — tabled (6-0): Continue Denise Edmonds conditional use permit request - **PLN-BOA-16-00033** — failed (5-1): Deny Bill and Kim Read third party appeal --- ## Full transcript Seeing you around here, you must be new to this town. Slippin' and a-slidin' Playin' domino Slippin' and a-rightin' Ain't a crime you know Well, I gotta tell the story Before it's time to go I'd like to welcome you all to the October Board of Adjustment meeting. Before we begin, there are just a couple housekeeping items. If you've got a cell phone, would you please turn it off? And if you need to take a call, please do so out in the lobby. If there's anyone who is going to speak today, if there's anyone who is going to speak at the lectern, would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Okay, you can be seated. The first item of business we have is the approval of the September 30th minutes. We've all had an opportunity to review those. Are there any corrections, any additions or deletions to the September minutes? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. I move we accept the September 30th minutes. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Ms. Myers makes a motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Needham seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. I'd like to ask right now, Mr. Marks, if there's anyone who needs a postponement. Are there any postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman. State your name for the record, sir. My name is Stan Lee. I'm here on behalf of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church, which should be item number 160029, we would request a postponement until January. Very good. Is there any questions of any members of the Board of Adjustment? I know that there have been some people here that also on both sides probably of this issue. looking at the complexity of the request representative lee i certainly can't speak for the board but but i think there's a lot of issues i think that need to be resolved not only with the neighborhood but i know with with with planning and zoning and so unless there's any opposition i'll will entertain a motion to postpone until january mr glover makes a motion to postpone until january mr gross seconds All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. And any opposed? Good luck and hope everything gets worked out with you all. Thank you for your courtesy. The applicant and the opposition. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and sound the rest of the agenda. And for those cases that have no opposition, folks, before you all leave, if there was anyone in opposition or anybody from the neighborhood, we feel that something like this we'd like to have a little bit more due diligence done I think on their part and they're willing to do that and we weren't prepared really I think to hear the case today for the main fact that there were a lot of issues I think working out that have to be worked out if in fact they can work out and I hope it's not an inconvenience for you to come back until January and we really appreciate your time for being here today. Thank you. I'm going to call the agenda, and if there's no opposition, we will hear those cases first, and if there's opposition, we will hear those afterwards. TTTT Investment Group, is the applicant here? Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to the TTT Investment Group request? Okay. Raleigh Bruner, DBA Wildcat moving. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Raleigh Bruner and Wildcat moving? Any opposition? Denise Edmonds. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Denise? There is opposition to Denise. Okay. Claesville Baptist Church is postponed. Nancy Coppinger. Is Nancy Coppinger here? Is there any opposition to Nancy Coppinger? Is there any opposition? And then we have another administrative review, Bill and Kim Reid. Are Bill and Kim Reid here? Okay. You're obviously in opposition, so we will be hearing the administrative review. That will be our last case. So be patient, and we'll get through this when we can. Well, the first item on the agenda is TTT Investment Group. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Timothy W. Vaughn. Yes, Mr. Vaughn. Mr. Vaughn, the staff has actually recommended approval made to the following conditions, and one of them being I know that you've got a five-foot-tall fence providing extra security, which they're going to allow, but the other part of the fencing is four-foot is the maximum height. And so they have three conditions for this approval. Have you read them, and do you agree to abide by them? not getting the five-foot fence, as you're saying, you're saying going with the four-foot fence? Well, they're recommending, if you've got the appeal or the case in front of you, it says that the fence surrounding the front and side of the building shall meet the requirement of four-foot maximum height, but the parking lot shall be permitted to utilize the five-foot-tall fence to provide access to security, which I think you've already got that five-foot fence up there around the back of the property. that correct mr marks am i interpreting this correctly um it's already been installed at five feet adjacent to the parking lot that's right it was it was currently a five foot fence all all the way around the building we were going to put a better fence up since it's no longer a resident it's going to be a salon a hair salon so we were under the impression the company was going to put the fence up so we went ahead and tore the part down so they could install the fence the five foot fence replacing the five foot fence that was already there and then we found out that it was had to be a four foot fence so that's why it was currently a five foot fence and had been forever and we wouldn't have tore down the five foot fence if we know that this was going to happen you know well staff has recommended that that you're that they're gonna allow the five foot fence that you have already installed to stay, but that because the requirement is a four-foot maximum height, they've asked for the front and the side of the building to meet the four-foot maximum height. And you want to try to have five feet all around? Is that what you're asking? Yes, it was five foot before. I understand that, but that's not... And that's when it was a resident, and now it's commercial property. Right. And, you know, right on that corner, we're going to have air-conditioned units and stuff like that, and it's just more security to have that bigger fence there and just to go with the overall theme of the whole building, you know. I understand. But we're here trying to interpret the ordinance what it is now, and now it's a four-foot high fence. Mr. March, do you have anything you'd like to do? Well, part of the reason we weren't comfortable with five feet all the way around is based on our review of what was there preexisting. It looked to us to be a lot closer to four feet than five feet, so all the way around. So if you have some kind of documentation that can demonstrate that what was previously there was really five feet. The existing part around the parking lot is the existing fence that's five foot. We never tore that part down. We just left the post and then put it back after a lot of the construction was done. We just, like I said, just recently tore it down, getting it ready for them to install the other one. I mean, there are pictures on the Internet, stuff like that. I don't have any with me now, but it was currently before a five-foot fence. And the building's been there since, what, 1918, 1991? One, I don't know if the fence has been there that long, but it was five foot when I bought the place. I've been living here about 20 years, and it's been there. Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Marsh, would it be helpful if he could provide some pictures of a five-foot fence for you? Oh, yeah, anything. I mean, we looked at Google Earth and things like that. Was it a wood fence, or was it a chain-link fence before? It was a chain-link fence before. We're going with more of a wrought iron style around the building since it's going to be a salon, just to make it look a little better around the building. The wood fence on the one side, that's not your fence, is it? No. The wood fence along, so we're just talking about the front and the side of the building, and I was out at the property taking a look at it, and I know some of it is regular, you know, the silver chain link fence, and some of it is a black shankling fence. Yes, the north side of the building, around the corner to the driveway, that was all black chain link fence. We spray painted, had the black chain link spray painted around the parking lot just to make it look better. But the rest of it was going to be replaced with the new fence around the building. I'm on Google Maps, and this is the shortest five-foot fence I've ever seen. It's five foot. Yeah. Well, Mr. Marshall, let me ask you this. Can we, if there were evidence that Mr. Vaughn could prove that there has been five-foot fence historically, would that change your recommendation and allow the five-foot fence? Mr. Vaughn, why don't you do that? If you don't mind, can we postpone this until our next board meeting and you supply planning and zoning with pictures from previous that shows a five-foot fence that has been there historically? because Mr. Marks could probably, in planning and zoning, could probably approve that five-foot fence if we had some historic documentation that that was in fact the case. Okay. Mr. Marks also, in the applicant, is the fence going to go all the way down to the corner like the old chain link fence? Yes, and turn the corner. So we're questioning whether or not there's going to be a site issue if it's wood, if it goes down to the corner, whether you could see around? It's going to be wrought iron. It's not going to be wood. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said it was going to be wood. So it is going to be something you can see. On one side of the property, next to the property is adjoining property. That's all wood, and it's already been there. But he's talking about extending the five-foot fence all the way around the side in the front. Yes, on the sidewalk side of the street. On the sidewalk, right. Hearing the conversation, I'll move that we continue the case until the November meeting. If that's appropriate. We meet on November. In other words, to allow you to get with planning and zoning and see if you can present them with some documents or proof that the fence was, in fact, five feet at one time. We had a similar case on our docket a few months ago where somebody wanted to build a five-foot fence, and we didn't let them. So we want to be consistent. But if you already had a five-foot fence, then that's a distinguishing. It shows on a picture of the PVA. It shows the fence. It doesn't say what size it was. It just shows, and it was pretty tore down in the front from, you know, just over the years. And then kids are in front, you know, waiting for school buses. A four-foot fence is just going to become a bench for everybody to sit on if I put a four-foot fence out there. Let me ask you this. Would it be easier on the applicant if we go ahead and approve the five-foot as to the parking area so he can at least get that constructed if he so chooses rather than waiting 30 days for him to do anything? The five-foot around the parking lot is already there. We never tore it down. The five-foot is already there. We're talking about the rest of the sidewalk or up the sidewalk and the front of the building is what we're talking about for the five-foot. And I think it would be easily resolved, as Mr. Glover comments, if you've got pictures of that showing a five-foot fence and present that to Mr. Marks, I think that we can probably resolve that, but we're not going to be able to do so today. But if you'll present that, I'd like a continuance also until the 18th. And I think that this would easily be resolved if you've got some proof with those pictures, Mr. Vaughn. Okay. And then the other issue was if, I know that the fence company said something about if it was a five-foot fence, it had to be closer to the building. I don't, is there something? A four-foot could be on the same line where it was currently, but the five-foot had to be a little closer. if it was granted that we could get the five-foot fence along that same sidewalk is a handicap access we put a blacktop road that leads to the front of the building and to put that five foot closer to the building would just knock out the handicap uh access that's what we're trying to there's a certain point if you move it back away from the street towards the house that it's just not subject to the four foot limit anymore so i think that's what he's talking about Oh, okay. I see. Yeah, I understand that. Sure. But he wouldn't have enough room to qualify there. Pardon me? Would he have enough room to qualify to move it back? To move it back. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly how much he has to move that back. That's a permitting question. For the handicap access on that side, we have 48 inches. To move the fence in would just knock that out. so we couldn't even have a handicap access anymore. Just so you understand, Mr. Vaughn, my motion to continue it for 30 days is for the purpose to allow you to present evidence to the staff that there was a five-foot fence there historically. So that would give us the grounds for approving your application. Since you have the burden of proof, it's up to you to show them what proof there is. So that's the basis of my motion to continue. It's allowing you an opportunity to show them that the property did have historically a five-foot fence on it. Otherwise, my guess is that your application will be defeated today because we've declined to approve similar requests in the past from other applicants. But if that property had a five-foot fence, then you're allowed 30 days to prove to staff that you did have it, and you'd be more likely to succeed in your application. Would it also qualify if I had the canceled checks to show where I paid to have that fence removed? That would be part of your discussion with the staff, because their recommendation right now for approval is only with a four-foot fence around the front of the property. So you're going to have to change their minds. Was that just with residential, or was that for commercial also, though? You'll have to talk to staff. It does extend to some commercial properties beyond residential, the four-foot limit in the front yard. Very good. Mr. Vaughn, I think if you come back to us after meeting with staff and presenting the evidence, I think this is something we can move forward with. But with Mr. Glover's motion, we're going to give you the opportunity to take the next several weeks and present that, and I don't think you'll have any problem coming back here. Okay. Okay? Okay. Mr. Glover makes a motion to continue this case until the November meeting. Is there a second? That was Mr. Gross seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Vaughn. Okay, thank you. Thank you. The next case with no opposition, Raleigh Bruner. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jason Banks. I'm a Banks engineering. I'm here today on behalf of Mr. Bruner. We have read staff's conditions and are in agreement with them and would request approval. Okay. Mr. Banks, you beat me to it. The staff has recommended approval subject to the four conditions, and you and your client agree to abide by those. Does any member of the Board of Adjustment have a question for Mr. Banks? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN VOA 16-00034 Raleigh Bruner DBA Wildcat Moving's request for a variance to reduce the required 100-foot distance from a residential zone for overhead doors to 62 feet in a light industrial zone at 408 Sporting Court for reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. makes a motion to approve. Is there a second? A second. Mr. Glover seconds. All in favor, signify for saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. The next item that we have with no opposition is Nancy Coppinger. Would the applicant please come forward? State your name for the record. Gene Coppinger, representing Nancy Coppinger, my wife. Thank you, Mr. Coppinger. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Absolutely. Okay, very good. I'd like to ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Mr. Coppinger. Hearing none, cheerily entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 16-003. Would somebody close the door back there, please? Nancy Coppinger's request for an administrative review to allow an increase in the height of an accessory structure 30 inches above the height of the principal structure in a single-family residential zone at 898 Maywick Drive in Council District 11, based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. Mr. Gross makes a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Needham seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. The first case with opposition is Denise Edmonds. Would the applicant please come forward and state your name for the record? Denise Edmonds. Ms. Edmonds, the staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Do you agree to abide by those seven conditions? Yes. Very good. I know that there's someone in opposition here today, so what we'd like to do is, obviously, staff has recommended approval. You're agreeing to the conditions. We'd like to hear from the opposition, and we'll bring you back up. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, before we get into anything, based on the number of parking spaces that are on the property now and that may be on the property in the future, it may reduce the number of children to 42. If she is unable to provide six parking spaces on the back of the property, I mean on the back property, the Hot Springs Court property, and only wants to provide four, then she may only be able to do 42 children rather than 60. So that might need to be reflected, depending on how this turns out, it might need to be reflected in the motion. Okay. Barbara, I had a hard time hearing you because your face is actually covered by the monitor there. So I'd state that again for me, please. The way the property is currently laid out, there is space, we think, for four spaces on the Calder Road property. That was how it was laid out. That's how it has been operated for years and years and years. There is space on the back property, on the 1228 Hot Springs Court property, that may accommodate four parking spaces. she would have to have eight parking spaces total for 60 children. If she can only provide six parking spaces, that may reduce the number to 42. That would reduce the number to 42. And based on our recommendation, if she provides six parking spaces on the rear in a Hot Springs Court property, then she could do the two spaces on the front so that there would be room to turn around and pull out rather than to back out onto the street. we are recommending that she only have two parking spaces on the Calder Road property and the rest of this parking spaces on the Hot Springs Court property and the way the property is currently laid out the way the parking area and the and the play area are laid out it would take a major redo of the property on Hot Springs Court so she wants to only provide four parking spaces on the Hot Springs Court property which would reduce the number of children that she can take care of to 42 once all of that is resolved. I know that the applicant has requested up to 60 children, but I know that the staff has recommended to accommodate 24. Until parking is provided on the Hot Springs Court property. Okay. And she may only be able to provide four parking spaces on Hot Springs Court, so that would Reduce, if we only do two parking spaces on the front property, to allow for a turnaround area, that would limit the parking to six, which would limit the number of children to 42. Could we put it up on the screen? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Are you able to see the... Let's see. Can you turn the lights down? So... So Hot Springs is a lot, is that correct? Hot Springs is a lot in and of itself, yes. And it should have been, because it's been used as part of the child care for as long as it has, should have been consolidated with Calder Road property, but it never was. There apparently is space in the back on the Hot Springs Court property that they have used for parking in the past, but it's not striped, it's not officially parking and it shouldn't have been used for parking unless the property was consolidated with Calder Road property. This is the Calder Road property. This is the principal property that we're considering. And if you can see, here's the curb cut and then the parking goes all the way from here over to here. And that's about 42 to 45 feet wide which would accommodate maybe four parking spaces which has been done in the past. and whoever would park there would have to back out onto the street, which is not a safe situation, especially on that street because it's in the Tates Creek Road area, it's in the Tates Creek High School and Middle School area, and it gets a lot of traffic. So on the other property, this is a layout that was approved probably back in the 1980s. It's hard to read the date on here, but it was approved by traffic engineering back probably in the 1980s for six parking spaces on Hot Springs Court. There is paving in the back that may accommodate four, but it's up against the fence, and then the play area is over on the remainder of the property. We'll go ahead. Does anybody have any other questions for Ms. Rackers or staff? Mr. Glover. I want to make sure what I'm looking at, the proposal that came with the application does show, in fact, the two pieces of property. Correct. I want to make sure what we're looking at on the screen is the same thing that I'm looking at in the application. Right here is Calder Road property. The property line is about probably like right along here. It doesn't show, but it's a long ride along there. Here is the residence that was used as the child care. This was originally the parking area, but it's been extended almost over to here to accommodate four cars. This is the layout that the traffic engineer back in the 80s, I think, approved. It's got their stamp on it. And it had more parking spaces here, two parking spaces here, and then it would have accommodated two parking spaces originally on the Calder Road property. What we would like to see, if possible, is six parking spaces on this property and two on this property so that there would be room for turnaround so that they could pull out into the street going forward rather than backing out into the street. our traffic engineer casey recommended that instead of these two parking spaces we put two parking spaces here but that's going to encroach into what is now the play area and a retaining wall so she miss miss edmunds said that she would prefer just to have the four parking spaces back there and if we do the two parking spaces on the front as opposed to four that would bring the number of children down to 42 as opposed to 60 and i don't know if that's more confusing than it needs to be or what, but. The structure, the existing structure on the Calder Road side is going to remain. Yes. And it would separate the two parking spaces in front of the Calder Road property from the six in the back to give a total of eight. If there were six on the back and two on the front, yes, it would be a total of eight. She could do up to 60 children if you approve this. And she'd have to have eight parking places in order to accommodate 60 children. It's three spaces for the first 12 children plus one space for every 10 after that. So for 60 children, she would need eight parking spaces. Okay. What you pointed out on the screen makes sense to me. I want to make sure it makes sense to the applicant. There is a retaining wall that goes along like this. And this currently is the play area over here. And I think parking is like along here. And it would be better if it was facing the other way, facing this way, so that people could turn around like this and then pull out going forward. And not be at a zero-foot setback, but at a six-foot setback along here to allow for sight distance and to allow for behavior use area screening. Are you suggesting that she, in order to accommodate six spaces on the Hot Spring Road's side of the property, she's going to have to take down that retaining wall? Yes, and that's why she only wants to do four. Okay. And so that would reduce the number of children she could take care of to 42 as opposed to 60. in the front on the Calder Road property you want her to come in and make an immediate left to park parallel with the house or the structure the way this is set up right now it would be probably perpendicular to the house but it would also have if there were two parking spaces right here this space could be used to turn around and they could pull out going forward and that was the recommendation of Casey Traffic Engineering There's enough room to back up without hitting that sidewalk if you're parking perpendicular to the structure I'm sorry? It didn't look like there's enough space if I pulled straight up to that structure perpendicular to it I could back up and stay within the uh within the sidewalk this is pretty deep from here to here it's probably 30 feet barb just to clarify how many parking spaces does she currently have right now we are Because it was used for four spaces for all of these years, we believe that she could... She got room for four spaces. We believe that since this was used for four spaces all of these years, that she could continue to use four spaces and only be allowed to take care of 24 children unless she provided parking in the back on the Hot Springs Court property. But those two properties are going to have to be consolidated because you can't have parking as a standalone use on a property in a residential zone. So it would have to be consolidated with this property, and she would have to provide more parking than the four parking spaces in order to accommodate more than 24 children. Ms. Myers, do you have a question? Does that make any sense? I hope. The staff report mentions about curbing. something about what is it the curb cut access point on calder road property be properly designed and concreted what does could you explain that to us casey could explain that she's she's the one that was her her words you can kind of tell from the picture that it's two different materials on that apron. So when they come in to do the construction, they need to just come back and make it all a concrete apron and make sure the sidewalk is ADA. So just when they come back in to do the other construction, make sure the apron is also up to current standards. Okay, what's the apron? I'm sorry. It's the road. Yes, between the curb and sidewalk. Okay. And you're not asking for it to be striped or anything. It's because it's out of character. But how are you going to direct people to park there? You know, do you want them to turn in and, you know, to be able to turn in, to come in and back around and then come out? So how do How do you direct them to do that? There should be a striping in their front parking area to delineate the actual parking spaces, and then they should be able to figure out the unmarked is for the turnaround area and then to exit back out through the apron. I'd like to go ahead, and we'll get back to you, Ms. Sandbins, in a minute. I know there's opposition. Do you want to come up and state your name for the record, please? Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris Clendenin. I am with the law firm of Murphy and Clendenin. As you can see, I've started a PowerPoint presentation. Before I begin, I wondered if I might have the opportunity to ask, since we've had some discussion from staff, Ms. Racker is a question, because I'm a little confused at this point. Would that be okay? That'd be fine. Thank you, sir. Ms. Rackers, am I to understand that the application has been modified to go from 60 children to 42 or to 24? Well, it's not modified to 24. We have said in the staff report that she could, based on the parking that is in the front of the property right now, she could do up to 24 children. Until the parking is provided in the back, she could only do 24 children. is what it says in the Stafford. Well, I understood that, but I've heard the number 42. 42 would be if she could only provide six parking spaces, four on the Hot Springs Court property and two in the front on this property, rather than banking the two that she had before, because we're trying to make it a more conforming situation. I understand. We're conforming and safer. So two on the front, Calder Road property, four on the back, based on the layout of the property right now. Has there been a decision as to how many parking spaces that she's going to be able to provide at this point? She just said right before this meeting that she would prefer to have only four parking spaces on the Hot Springs Court property. Which would leave a total of six spaces to 42 children. So we've gone from 60 to 42. Yeah. Okay, thank you. As long as she agrees to that. She has to agree to the number of parking spaces. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you for indulging me, members of the board and staff. Good afternoon. I'm representing, if you look at the first page here, with that long list of names there that begin with a B, I'm representing that gentleman. He is originally from Thailand. Please don't ask me to pronounce his name. He asked me to refer to him as Palm, and so I do. I couldn't pronounce his name if my life depended on it. But he is a property owner. Are we moving here? There we go. To start off, these are pictures of the two properties, isolated 3580 Calder and 1228 Hot Springs. and the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to reestablish a previously approved child care, which you are aware of and apologize. I prepared this for the 60 children thing that I was notified of in the report. And she is additionally seeking a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 to zero in order to accommodate the parking. That may have changed as well. Now, my understanding of the history on this property is that this was originally approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1972 for a child care facility for up to 60 children, and subsequently re-approved for the same thing in 1976. The locations have operated on an on-again, off-again basis for about 40 years. And my understanding is that it ceased operating and has remained vacant since May of 2014, which is over two years ago. This is a map, really, of the PVA and the lots. If you see the red highlighted two lots, those are the two lots that the applicant is applying for there. That's 3580 and 1228. The properties highlighted in yellow are the properties that are owned by my client. Now, this property is all located in R1C. And for the conditional uses that are permitted in R1C, the zoning ordinance refers you back to R1A. Permitted uses, conditional uses in R1A or kindergarten, nursery schools, and child care centers for four or more kids when they are an accessory to a church, private club, or school that is not applicable here. Also provides for family child care for up to seven and not more than 12 children, provided that the total number of children living or being cared for on the premises do not exceed 12. Now, to qualify under the definition of family child care, under the zoning ordinance, the owner slash operator must be residing on the premises, and I don't think that that is the case here. Now this is an aerial view of the subject property, and as we've already discussed, there is no real structure on the 1228 property, and my understanding is 3580 is vacant. To my knowledge, the applicant does not intend to reside there. If that is something that I'm misinformed about, then I'd be glad to get that information from the applicant or someone from the staff. But my understanding is that 3580 is presently a vacant property. Now, due respect to the board, this is the board's specific power. pursuant to this zoning ordinance and pursuant to this statute. The Board has the power to hear and decide applications for conditional use permits which allow proper integration in the planning area for conditional uses that are specifically named in the zoning ordinance and only as to specific locations. A 60 child care or a 42 child care child limit child care facility under family care is not a permitted use in R1A. Therefore, it's not permitted in R1C. Now, even assuming that the board thinks that it does meet that definition, the most that we could vote on here under the zoning ordinance for a permitted use would be 24 children and not 60 or 42 as being requested. And I would argue that it would be beyond this board's authority to do so, respectfully. Now, the argument may be from the applicant that it's a nonconforming use because this was previously approved and operated as a child care. Now, this is the definition under the LFUCG zoning ordinance for nonconforming use that were lawful prior to the adoption or amendment of the zoning ordinance, but would be prohibited under the current zoning ordinance. Now, this is the pertinent language in the ordinance for Article 4.3. Nonconforming use shall be permitted to continue as long as it remains lawful and shall be regulated as follows. No nonconforming use shall be enlarged or extended. It may not be altered in any way to alter the scope of its operation. When a non-conforming use is discontinued or abandoned, showing a gross lack of diligence in use for one year or more, the non-conforming use may not be resumed. Now, you may not be able to read this, but I've added some text on the right. This is a copy of the 1976 conditional use permit that was recorded in the office of the clerk. and in there it says one of the conditions for approving this was six off-street parking spaces. Now this condition, as we all heard, was never complied with by the original applicant and the subsequent applicant. That was the condition in 1972. It was the condition in 1976. It was the condition in 1983 when the zoning ordinance was amended. It was the condition in 1994 when the person who owns the property now met with the staff and was informed of that. So I would argue that this is not a lawful conditional use. It's not a lawful nonconforming use. And their permit, because they didn't follow the conditions, their permit and their nonconforming use is null and void. this increase in the parking versus the previously acquired six versus the four, and as a member of the staff here from the traffic department explains, we're going to have to change some stuff and alter some stuff and pave, extend. We're requesting a variance that goes from 30 to zero. we're altering the scope of the operation in order to change and accommodate and make it the way that it is now required under the zoning ordinance. So we're altering the scope of this daycare if we're talking still that this is possibly under a non-conforming use and it's not permitted under the zoning ordinance. I'd also argue that their non-conforming use This has been discontinued and abandoned. The last time this was operated was in May, hypothetically, of 2014. That's over two and a half years ago. The way the zoning ordinance reads, if it's discontinued or abandoned for more than a year, assuming the government is not preventing it from operating or assuming it's not damaged or has been destroyed, this operation may not resume. The authority from this comes from this statute from the state. The Attorney General's weighed in on this opinion. It says that the zoning ordinance under LFUCG, the way that it's written, is not in conflict with the statute as written, the subsection one of that statute, where it says, lawful use of building or premises existing at the time of adoption of any zoning regulations affecting it may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of regulations. Essentially, the Attorney General is saying a reasonable time limit could be put on this to cut off a nonconforming use if they don't comply with the statutory basis for a nonconforming use. The applicant is Ms. Edmonds. The owner of the property is a woman named Peggy Burkholter. She acquired this property in 1987. According to the file, she was told when she acquired the property that it's not in compliance with the previously received conditional approval. There's a copy of a note from the planning file. You all may have seen this. You may not. I don't know if it's in the file. If you can't read it, it basically says that Ms. Burkholder, who's the owner of the property, was informed that the previous owner, who I believe was named Linda Sutherland, never complied with the Board of Adjustment Conditions. And it actually says illegal parking. Again, this is another note from that same day in the file regarding this. Ms. Burkholder was informed again that she had to have six off-street parking things as a condition. It's a must, and that this was a condition of the approval that the prior owner had received. And that the way that she was doing what we were just talking about with the paved area was illegal. This was in 1994. and at the bottom it basically said I guess she didn't like hearing that and that she would probably sue the previous owner and left the office. That's what the note says. I would say that these are a variety of reasons for disapproving this application. It's never been operated in a lawful manner. It never complied with the conditions of the approval for the conditional use permit it received from the beginning. Ceased operating in excess of two years, therefore its non-conforming use, if we want to argue this is a non-conforming use, may not be resumed under the zoning ordinance. The applicant is changing and altering the property to conform to this and conform to the requirements now, but in order for it to be considered a non-conforming use, you can't do that and still be a non-conforming use. The applicant doesn't meet the required definition of family child care under the zoning ordinance. Again, to my knowledge, the owner or the applicant is not residing there, and if they did on the one structure, the most they could have would be 12 kids, the properties were consolidated, then it would be 24 hypothetically, but that would operate under the presumption that 24 children are going to be technically either combined residing in that place, that one house, or being cared for and residing there, or just being cared for there at the one structure. 60 children or even 42 children is not permitted in this zone. I would argue since we've let this go for 40 years that this is a willful violation of the zoning regulations. And in Ms. Burkholder's case, who's the current owner of the property, at least 20 years. If that's not willful, I don't know what is. And there's proof in the record here that she knew about this. There's been nothing done until now to try to change this. And again, respectfully, if you were to grant this application, I would argue that it is in excess of the board's authority to do so. If any of you have questions, I'd be glad to entertain them at this point. Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Clinton? Ms. Rackers? Questions, but when it comes time for rebuttal, I would like to rebut some things that were said. And if that could stay up on the screen, that would make it a lot easier. Did you have a comment, Mr. Marks? Just to follow up with what Barb just said, we need a chance to respond to some of the claims that were made, which we don't agree with. Right. Well, because one of the things that I wanted to ask Ms. Jones and staff is obviously Mr. Clinton says that the current condition is nonconforming. It's illegal to operate that, and obviously granting the application is in excess of our powers. And I'd like to get our legal staff opinion on that because obviously staff has recommended approval, and I don't think that they would steer us in an unlawful manner. So I'd like to hear from legal and asking about the application and Mr. Clendenin's reasons for disapproval and whether or not that's correct or whether or not we have the authority to move forward with this. I think you have the authority to move forward right now because I think you need to hear all the facts that the staff was relying on as well to make your decision. If you assume that what he is stating is true, there's a couple of things. First, a conditional use, once it's granted, doesn't just automatically become null and void if some of the conditions aren't met. In other words, they're inspected annually, and so if, now I don't know in the 70s and 80s how that worked, but if there's a condition that's not met, then it has to be brought back to your all's attention, and a permit has to be revoked. you don't just you know you don't grant it and then it automatically just goes away because someone complains or says this condition is not being met. So I don't think that this conditional use that was granted back in 19 whenever is null and void unless there was a condition in that conditional use permit which I don't believe there was that says should you know any of this cease to sometimes we put those in then it's going to be null and void. So I think there's still a conditional use permit on that property. Now, the question of whether or not that nonconforming use, which has changed now, has been abandoned so that you didn't have an existing nonconforming use, when this one comes into play is a factual question, and I don't think you've heard all the facts yet from what the staff is saying. So I think you're going to have to hear those. Does that make sense? Very good. Mr. Marks or Ms. Rackers, did you want to go ahead and respond? Okay, first of all, if there are four parking spaces on the back... Would you come in front of us, Mr. Clendenin, would you have a seat for a moment and come up? Barb, we can hear you much better. And I think Mr. Marks wants to add it to the two. If there are four parking spaces on the back property, and they had the parking spaces on the front of the Calder Road property, then they did fulfill the conditions. The property ceased operation two years ago, and you have to prove gross negligence and abandonment. And I think the property's been for sale. So that does not show that it's not been converted back to a single-family residence. It has stayed, it's obviously still used as a, or was used as a child care. It was and never converted back to a single family residence. Seeks to alter the scope of its operation through the requested variance. That's to make the parking on the Hot Springs Court property legal. To reduce the, because there's a 30 foot setback on that property. Because it's a frontage, it's on the street and he has a 30 foot setback requirement. you're not allowed to park in the required front yard, and so she needs to have a variance to reduce that to what we asked for originally was zero because she wanted to put the parking right up to where the fence is. We're saying six based on the layout of that traffic engineering drawing to make it a safe situation and so that there would be room for the vehicular use area screening. Family child care is not what I understood Mr. Clendenin to say. it doesn't mean that the kids all have to live at that property. That's not family child care. Family child care means that a person who lives at the property takes care of between 7 and 12 children. It doesn't have to be their own children. It doesn't have to be members of the family. It can be anybody, but members of the family have to be included in that 7 to 12. So, I mean, they don't all have to live on the property, so there wouldn't be 20 kids living on that property, 24 kids living on that property, 60 kids living on that property. It would just be, if it was family child care, they could live there, but they don't have to. It means that family child care is the person who is operating the child care is the person who lives there and takes care of children. That was totally incorrect. Well, but she's not applying for family child care, so that's not. Correct. What she is asking to do is to be able to continue what was done over the years. and building inspection issued certificates of occupancy over the years after the time for that note that was in file there from building inspection that said that it was illegal parking. And I think if there are four parking spaces on the Hot Springs Court property, that probably remedied the situation. That was done after that note by Mr. Ritchie was put in there. He was a building inspector at the time. the variance is a result of violation of the zoning regulations no it's not she's asking for a variance so that she can put parking there so that she can accommodate more than 24 children and this would not be in excess of the powers because there was no null and void condition put on that and so it has been a legal conforming, not legal conforming but a legal conditional use over the years since it was granted in 1976 Barbara, what about number five? You skipped over 60 children. 60 children? No, not now. It's not a permitted use. It's not a conditional use. That changed in 1983. Up until 1983, it was permitted as a conditional use. And when the zoning ordinance was rewritten in 1983, that was first made allowed in the R3 zone, which is the planned residential zone. It's not allowed in the single-family residential zone anymore. But we believe that because there was no null and void condition put on that, that it's been able to continue as a legal non-conforming use. She's not asking for more than what was originally allowed. And in fact, if she only can provide six parking spaces, she's not even going to have as many as were originally allowed by the board and what has been allowed by building inspection over the years. So how many kids would be permitted? If she does the parking as we're requesting, two parking spaces on Calder Road and then four parking spaces in the back as opposed to the six, she could do up to 42 children. And that would not be any more nonconforming than it has been since 1976 or since 1983 when it became nonconforming. Okay. And then I believe Mr. Marks has something he'd like to add. Just to echo what Ms. Jones stated, we consider this to be a valid conditional use. There was no revocation hearing. It's on the books as a valid conditional use. Granted, she hasn't complied, not necessarily Ms. Edmonds, but historical use, there's never been compliance with all the conditions. When we were first confronted with this situation, we looked at all the factors and said, oh, my gosh, what are we going to do with this? You know, they're obviously not complying with the conditions. It's 60 kids in a residential zone that right now would only be allowed up to 12. So we really scratched our heads. What's the best approach to this? Well, our best approach was to make a bad situation as much better as we could. Ms. Edmonds wanted to do it a little different than what it was originally approved as. She inherited a situation where there was the four parking spaces along Calder Road that obviously didn't comply. So we had to deal with that. On the legal ad, this is described as a request to reestablish. We could have written it up as a request to amend a previously approved conditional use. It's the same thing. So that's what this is. The practical implication of just flat-out disapproving this would be that she goes back to the originally issued conditional use and complies to the letter with exactly those conditions as written. which would mean tearing up the concrete on Collider Road that was installed, I don't know exactly when, but without a permit, putting in the six spaces on the Hot Springs property, complying with the 60 children limit, she'd be good to go. She'd be in compliance with all of the originally imposed conditions for that valid conditional use. So we look at it and say, well, that's not making the situation any better. We'd prefer to make it better, leave the two spaces in the concrete area or asphalt, whatever it is, on Calder Road, and put either four to six on Hot Springs. All things considered what we've heard today, it seems like a significant improvement if we can get this down to the 42 kids, not have to disrupt the play area on the Hot Springs property the way that the six would have. Just for the record, to clarify a few things, some notes were put up there referred to as planning notes. Those weren't planning notes. Those were building inspection notes from when they became aware that the conditions weren't being complied with. But what was most striking to us is there's no indication of any action taken after that by building inspection to get the problems corrected. And I'm not putting that in the light of picking on them. It's for whatever reason, no actions were taken after that to get the problem fixed. And the other thing is certificates of occupancy for the originally approved conditional use for up to 60 children after that time frame were issued by building inspection. So you've got to put all this in context and understand that Ms. Edmonds has inherited all this. There was a long period of years where it was accepted that that four-space parking lot on Calder was okay. No one ever told them to take it out. So we're trying to make a bad situation as best we can, make as many improvements as we can, and just wanted to kind of put all that in the right perspective. Mr. Glaser? Mr. Glover, did you have a question? I did have a question. What part of this property is nonconforming, a nonconforming use? Mr. Clendenin mentioned that there was a non-conforming use. Well, issue number one, let's see, item number one. Well, his note says non-conforming use doesn't apply, so I'm confused. Is there a non-conforming use or is there not? We don't think there's any legitimate non-conforming use issues here. Okay. Because of the gross negligence clause. There's no evidence of any gross negligence. Okay. So we're really dealing with just the conditions, whether the conditions were fulfilled or not. If they were not fulfilled, they're not abandoned? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I wouldn't consider that abandonment, no. Okay. the fact that we grant a conditional use and the conditional use is not complied with, the applicant doesn't thereby lose the conditional use is what you're saying. Exactly, and I believe that's what Ms. Jones said. All right, thank you. I believe it was mentioned that the property has been listed for sale as a child care center during the time period from the last seats of operations until today. So even though it wasn't being actively used as a child care, it appears they are trying to at least sell it to somebody who would use it for a child care. But that doesn't even matter. Yeah. It just shows it probably wasn't abandoned or neglected. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Marks? I have a question for staff. I'm not sure if Mr. Marks can handle it. Well, I'm sure you can handle it, but it should be addressed to you. I'll probably punt. I'm jumping forward to the conditions for approval. And number seven, if we could look at number seven, it says the conditional use permit shall become null and void should the appellant cease to own, which he doesn't right now, or occupy the property as a child care facility. Would that limit the ability to transfer this conditional use permit unless they come back to us? Yes, it would. And we added that specifically for the reason that's been discussed here today, that there's been a lot of changes in ownership here and a lot of passing on of noncompliance and conditions, which is never a good thing. So that's why we added that as a condition this time around. It wasn't in the original approval. Okay. So just to make sure, so the intent is she won't be able to sell it to somebody else without them coming back in front of us and us giving them a new conditional use permit? Well, she could sell it, but the new person wouldn't be able to continue that activity unless they came and got approval. Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Marks? The applicant has been sitting quietly. I'd like to bring Ms. Edmonds back up. And, Ms. Edmonds, obviously you've heard from staff and you've heard from Mr. Clendenin. And I wanted to see if you had any response. And obviously it appears that up to 42 kids can be accommodated, but I know that the staff had recommended 24 based on the number of existing on-site parking spaces, although listening to staff, listening to Mr. Clendenin, I wanted to see if you had any other things to add, any comment. Actually, I do. When they were talking about 60 kids, you've got to look at also night care, too. You can have up to 24, 42, or 49, which the farm marshal came to inspect the building, and he said I can only have 49, and he granted me to have night care also. So within that, you can have more kids at night after so many hours, as long as the building only has 49 children at a time. So when you look at 60, and like I said from the previous, I really don't know how they got 60. They probably done the same thing, had night care, 24-hour care to bring up the 60 children. In the back, it is paved. like I said it is paved in the back of the what Ms. Recker was talking about and not only that my thing is when the parents come to pick up their kids you can't make them go in the back yes I can do everything that I need to do for the back put the parking lines put the stripes and everything in there but you can't make them because when you go to daycares they're going to want to park in the front get their kids and leave. Ms. Edwin what is your what are your plans for hours of operation? Actually, to start out, it's 6 to 6. On UK game days, I will be open. When they have UK game days, that's a plan that I decide to throw in on my own for kids that can bring their kids, you know, like on Saturdays or whatever games, game day, and have a nightcare eventually, 24 hours. But only at that time to have 49 kids, because the state fire marshal came and gave me a paper to say that I can only have 49 kids. So let me ask, Mr. Eckers or Mr. Marks, I thought 42 was a limit under the current. That's the parking limitation. Yeah, fire marshal is not always, I mean, the state recommendations or the state regulations are not always the same as ours. Sometimes ours are more restrictive, sometimes theirs are more restrictive. based on the number of parking spaces and based on the parking ratio that's in the zoning ordinance. If there are six parking spaces on the site, she can only do 42. And you would have to say okay to the all-night thing. It wouldn't be automatic. She's asking for six to six, and we think that is fine. It's in the middle of a residential zone, and all-night care is not probably a good idea. All night care is not part of this application. Does anybody have any other questions for Ms. Evans? I'm kind of curious about what's before us. I mean, what is the application before us? I've heard a lot of conversation for and against, but I'm not sure what, if we voted on it, what we'd be approving. It looks like that what we'd be approving with the staff's recommendation would be up to 24 children. Am I misreading that? I'm just reading it as I'm talking. That's not a good idea. Never a good idea. So what are we voting on? We referenced the 24 just to kind of explain what she could do without modifying any of the parking conditions. And in fact, we've already issued a zoning compliance permit for the 24 based on the parking spaces on Calder Road. So I think what's on the table at this point is Ms. Edmonds has amended her application to just have four parking spaces in Hot Springs, plus two, a modified front parking along Calder for just two spaces, not four, to improve that situation, which leads to the 42. Now, the 42 limit, in our minds, is at any given time no more than 42 children being cared for. I think what Ms. Edmonds was trying to explain, there might be 59 different kids in general, but some of them might be at different odd hours. But at any given time, it would be no more than 42 children being cared for. I understand that, yeah. And I think anybody that's been to a club with fire marshal restrictions understands the occupancy limitations. Right. But I do have a different question, I guess. And I'm not an engineer or architect or whatever. But the front of the Calder Road property that has been used as parking and is intended to be used for two spaces to park, if that's being used for child care drop off and pick up, it seems to me that pulling in and backing up to pull out is not the safest way to do it. So I wonder if there's another way. I mean, a circular drive or a half moon shaped drive or something, pulling in and then driving straight through and pulling out wouldn't be a better conceptual plan than backing up. If that was planned, it would have to be approved by traffic engineering. There would have to be enough width to the property to allow that, and then it would have to be landscaped in the front, just like any vehicular use area. But that would be up to traffic engineering to determine if there is enough space on the property to do that. That would be a possibility, I think, but it would have to be approved by traffic engineering. And my concern really is it's a safety concern with any time you're putting children into or letting them out of cars and the cars are allowed to back up, that's a recipe for bad things. So be advised, I guess. That's all. Well, and my question is also, her appeal for a conditional use permit is for up to 60 children. And so her request has got to be amended as well. And obviously with the parking situation and so forth, I'm just asking this out loud. Because it's been kind of a confusing hearing, particularly with the parking, would it be uh is this something that the board would would would want to go forward with today or would you like to see a revised application and it looks like some of the conditions are going to be uh needing to be changed as well or is that something that we could um or if in fact uh the board decides to go the other way but it seems to be a little a little muddy a little I agree. I'd like to see a clean application that doesn't have so many variables in it, especially because there's opposition. And I'm mindful of the opposition. This is a residential zone where we're being asked to approve something that has had several parts proposed to us today. I'd like to see something a little more concrete, a little more firm, I guess a solid request before I'm ready to vote on it. Mr. Gross? I would say it would be nice to have a cleaner report in front of us. To the extent staff believes that it could be done while we're hearing the rest of our cases, and then we could postpone this until the end of the other two matters, I would be willing to allow them at that time to make the amendments, put them up on the screen, and we can approve. We do that on a pretty regular basis. Well, do we have time to do that? I mean, I would say that our next meeting is November 18th, which isn't that far away, and maybe that would allow staff time for the cleaner report. I agree with you. The findings or the conditions that are confusing? I was just looking at the conditions, and it doesn't seem like anything is contradictory to what you would be approving. It would be just approving it for up to 42 rather than 60. And it would be the findings that would need to change rather than the conditions. Well, like, for example, the third condition, number of children to be cared for limited to 24. I'm just, I'm like Mr. Gover. We've got a lot of moving parts here, Barbara, and I'm just not very – I'm just – obviously her application is going to – her appeal is going to have to be modified as well. And I don't know if that's something that we can do before the end of this meeting, but to Ms. Meyer's point, you know, November 18th is right around the corner. And I'd like to see a cleaner report and a little bit more focused request on Ms. Evans' behalf as well. And I'd like to see the application of self-ass conditions. I mean, the application as it stands is limited to 24 until parking recommended by the engineer is provided. I want to see what the actual plan looks like. And I sure don't like the plan in the front of the property on call to road with kids with cars backing up. That's just my thoughts. Okay. This is approved by traffic engineering. This layout right here. This area instead of the parking places to be the turnaround. Okay. Okay. This was originally the six parking spaces like this, but if she only wants to provide more, then it would be these more plus the two turn around. The turn around area is not there. Yeah, I want to see what that looks like. I would say I feel like some members of the board are having the issues because we got an application. It says maybe six, maybe four will do. And I think the concern is that the applicant has not kind of solidified her plan so we know exactly what she's going to do rather than say, well, I may just have the four spaces, but I may change my mind and do two more spaces later. And I think that is causing part of the disconnect between the application and some of the board members. Is that fair? I think that's fair. Bring us a plan that we can approve without so many moving parts in it. Show us what the engineering is going to look like. Show us a drawing that has what you proposed the final site plan to look like. And then we can vote it up or down. Well, and I'd like to know if it's going to be 24 kids or 42 kids. I'd like to know if it's going to be 24 kids or 42 kids. And obviously the facility, as she's requested, up to 60 kids. Mr. Eckers, I'm just not comfortable with this, and I concur with my colleagues, and I'd like to continue this to November 18th as well. Yeah, we understand. Is that okay? Okay. Do we need a motion? Mr. Glover, would you like to make a motion? I move that we continue the 16-31 until the November docket. Mr. Glover makes a motion to continue to November 18th, and hopefully we'll come back with a little clearer idea of moving forward, because this has had a lot of moving parts that many have been somewhat confusing, I think, to all of us. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, a second to continue to November 18th. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thanks. We'll hopefully get this worked out. Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe our last case is Bill and Kim Reed. Please come forward and state your name for the record. My name is Kim Reed. I'm Bill Reed. Mr. and Mrs. Reed, you're here for a third-party appeal of the Division of Planning's decision that the four unrelated persons and up to four handicapped can legally occupy a dwelling and a single-family residential at 1617 Versailles Road. I'd like to ask for the staff to report as well because they've obviously granted this, and you're appealing, so I'd like to hear from staff, whomever would like to take the lead on that. Mr. Marks? You want us to go first? I want you to go first. Mr. and Mrs. Reed, could you have a seat just for a second? I want to bring you right back up and say whatever you have to. Thank you. sisters of charity, nuns, that was a property that was for sale that wanted to buy this property, occupy it with the four nuns, but also take in between two and four women who were recovering from just being released from a hospital. So they had physical issues at that point. They weren't quite ready to be independent, so they needed some level of assistance in their living arrangement. So the question to us was, is that legal? We did our evaluation. It's a single-family residential zone. It's allowed to have one dwelling unit. So the question is, what type of mix of living arrangements can you have in that one dwelling unit? Back in 2010, that question was extensively evaluated and resulted in a definition of what we call a family or housekeeping unit. I'm going to put that up on the overhead. That's still difficult to read. If we can blow this section up here up. Okay. Yeah, right in there. Okay. That's better? This is right from our zoning ordinance, the definition of a family or housekeeping unit. As you can see here, four or fewer unrelated persons qualify. And then the most critical part of all this is right down here, not more than eight persons who are, number two here, handicapped as defined in the Fair Housing Act in the reference to the numbers there. So that's the question here. Are these women that are recovering, are they considered handicapped per the Fair Housing Act? So we looked at, of course, the definitions in the Fair Housing Act that are specifically referred to there, and it seemed pretty clear in our minds that, yes, they were at that point considered handicapped. And this all relates, of course, to federal law providing reasonable accommodation for different folks with disabilities or being handicapped. So in our minds, and this wasn't the first of this type of request that we reviewed, but we looked at it again closely, and we conferred with the Department of Law closely just to make sure we were still on the right track. So our determination was, yes, that's illegal use for that living arrangement in a single-family residential zone, the four unrelated persons and between two and four women that were recovering from just being released from the hospital. We understand the frustrations of many of the neighbors in that area. The Reeds happen to be the ones that filed the appeal. There are others that had concerns about this. We get in these situations, and we're not allowed to make judgments about whether we like it or don't like it or think it's a good idea or a bad idea. We have to go with what the zoning ordinance says. And like I said, this whole issue went through extensive review in 2010, which resulted in that definition that I just showed you. It wasn't a casual decision by any means. It was a very thoughtful decision that involved consultation with the Department of Law. So that's where we stand on this. We determined it was a legal use. The Reeds disagree with that. So at this point, I think it's best to hear from them. I certainly answer any questions you have. Any questions for? Yeah, I've got a question. And as I understand the Fair Housing Act definition of handicap, the ordinance says the definition does not include those currently illegally using or addicted to controlled substances. So if you are addicted to controlled substances and you're not otherwise handicapped, you don't fall under the definition of handicapped under the Fair Housing Act. Is that fair? Yes. Sure. So, okay. They told us they're not going to do that in this particular case. I'm sorry? They have advised us in their initial correspondence that that would not be the type of people that they would be attempting to take in. So it's mostly a recovery house? It's a very temporary recovery house to get them to where they're able to be independent. Sure. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, the appeal documents don't really give any indication at all about what exact services are being provided, to whom, how long. Do we have any indication of, like, who's coming in, what is temporary, how are they actually handicapped? It's based on the need at the time, I understand. They can't predict what the specific needs are going to be. The duration is however long it takes for them to be able to live independently. I guess I don't want to be flipping here, but is there any, I mean, it appears to me that, how do we do a review, the law department do a review if there's no information given on what they're doing? There was enough information to be clear that they were handicapped. They were disabled. I think it might help if we hear from the appellants. And maybe if we have questions, we can come back to you. I have one other thing just following up on what Mr. Glover said and what Mr. Gross said. Obviously, with the controlled subject or substance or addicted to, and this is something that we can ponder after hearing from the applicants. I'm interested in is there some type of review process if, in fact, there are people that go into this facility that do have drug addictions. Because if I was a neighbor, I would certainly be concerned about that. And I'd just like to maybe later on bring that back up about, you know, what kind of process might we have to make sure that this doesn't occur? And that was really the reason why I asked my question originally, because if the inability to live on your own is because of an addiction or to a control substance or something like that, then that doesn't meet the definition of handicapped, and therefore those people, if not otherwise handicapped, wouldn't qualify to be cared for in this particular home. Correct. And you agreed with me about that, is that right? Yeah, and I don't recall if that was in the initial correspondence we got from Mark Crosby with the Fair Housing Council. I'm not sure they got into that much detail. But at the neighborhood meeting, we had to try to explain our decision and also for them to explain more what they wanted to do at that particular residence. Mr. Crosby did indicate that they had no intent at all of housing that type of individual. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Mr. and Mrs. Reed. We, too, are concerned because of the vague nature of how people are going to be admitted or not admitted to this program. That being said, the issue of the chemical dependency or drug addiction, my recollection of that at the meeting was that when we asked that question, if the people would be coming in, would be drug addicted, The response from the sister representing the missionaries of charity said that simply, well, we don't allow them to use illicit drugs on our facility. There was not a definitive answer that no, they would not be accepted. The other concern we have is the handicapped. I understand the definition of that. there's no allowances or no accessibility issues that have been changed to the house for people who are being immobile or handicapped. So that concerns us also. There is no indication of when or how these people will be accepted other than from the hospital. Whether they were homeless before they came and homeless after they are leaving was not clear which makes us think that it's more likely a homeless shelter. And the other issue is they indicated that they intended to administer medication to the people who were residing there, the patients or clients. Did I miss anything? Do you want to add anything, Mr. Reed? That does cover it. I think the other thing that did come up, And this was a meeting that took place on August 31st at the Public Library on Versailles Road and Village Drive. We didn't know anything about this until about a week before that it happened. And our concerns were even after the meeting were more than they even were before, based on some of the things that you all have asked here, because it seems open-ended on the time of stay. You ask that. the sister that was representing the order, her statement was, well, the average stay is about two months. But there was no commitment because I did ask, is there a maximum stay? And the answer was no. We left, or I left certainly, with more questions than I had answers to. And the concerns are that these are people that are medically fragile. One of the statements that was made by the sister representing them was that the only disruption to the neighborhood would be maybe frequent ambulance runs to the residents. I'll carry that a step further because there's an issue, well, there's several issues, and you're probably aware of some of them. The area itself is pretty well saturated with facilities that have got a negative history. And the issue of safety is really primary. You're going to have four people that, again, by the statement of the sister, would be largely confined to beds. That then, in my mind, raised the issue of the safety of these people in a single family residence. In the event of a fire, for example, how would they get out? That's something that has to be considered. This, in the end, is not, we feel, an appropriate use of a single-family dwelling and doesn't fit really what I think was intended under these exemptions. Again, the area itself is literally saturated. It's literally inundated right across the street, directly across the street. I've never gotten a handle on this, some type of inpatient mental health care facility. And then right next door to it is the Messner home. And, you know, for this area to have this much in a one-block area, essentially, it does affect the neighborhood adversely. And with all these other concerns that have been, we've heard, it just heightens the concern that we have. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Reed. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Reed or Mrs. Reed? Mr. Reid, are you saying that the description of the people that are going to live there doesn't fit with the ordinance? Yes, sir, I am. Number one, by the admission of the order, they're going to administer medication. These are people coming from the hospital. A question that I ask is then, on a form of aftercare, why wouldn't a facility like Cardinal Hill or a nursing home be appropriate? And I'm told, oh, no, they're not appropriate for that. But on the other hand, they admitted they were going to be largely confined to their beds. That means coming out of the hospital if it's post-operative. I think everybody realizes there's going to be issues with changing dressings if they have such. I think we're all familiar with conditions when you come out of a hospital, depending on the nature of the stay, as well as the fact that the sister said to the question of, are these people going to be addicted? And she said, well, we don't know. We have no way to tell. I think they have an obligation under this to screen at least. But to have somebody in there that is addicted, even though they don't allow drug use, that's not a... Well, the definition doesn't disqualify you if you're addicted. It simply says that the addiction can't be the basis for defining you as handicap. So if they're medically fragile, your language, the addiction to controlled substances doesn't matter. Right. So they would otherwise qualify. Right. Otherwise, but they could just be addicted. Sure. There's no. We don't know. Right. That's part of the problem. We don't know where they're coming from, exactly what their medical issues are, what the criteria is for admission, what the criteria is for release. It's just this big kind of facility that's going in two doors down. If I could interject real quick and ask Ms. Jones a question. Please. I'm looking at the ordinance, and the ordinance says, you know, A, would you have a certain type of family unit? Then B, you can have four people or a few of the unrelated. But my question is, can you glob B and D together and essentially say you can have four unrelated people, plus you can have four up to eight handicapped people for a total of 12 people? Is that the position? And in that case, can I then have A, which is a family unit, plus I can add four more unrelated people, plus eight handicapped people to a unit? No, I mean, the limitation is going to be eight people, but they're not going to be related necessarily. No, I understand they're not related, but it says not more than eight persons who are handicapped. Are the four nuns also handicapped? No, they're not. But what that limitation is, is that there can be only eight people in that house. So if four of them are the Sisters of Charity, then they're only going to have four other people in the house with them that they will be providing post-medical recovery to. The Section D is actually using language that we're required to from the Fair Housing Act. And the letter that we got from the Fair Housing Council's attorney, which certainly made us look at this closely because he is the Fair Housing Council attorney and obviously they are looking at this as well, was that they were going to have a residence that would aid individuals with disabilities, which is the language he uses in the letter, that are in medical recovery coming from the hospital until such time as they can care for themselves independently. So, you know, there is not a limitation on time in this ordinance, and I think that's what they're saying. as long as they are meeting this ordinance in terms of needing care because they have some kind of disability, they aren't going to put a time on it, is my understanding from him. Now, I also understood from him that there's a difference between having people that they're going to care for that may have or be responsible for some kind of medication they've been given postoperatively or whatever and actually administering medication. And it's my understanding from them, the nuns aren't going to be actually administering medication to these folks because if they do, that puts them in a different level under medical whatever. So if somebody comes in with a bottle of pain pills that the doctor gave them after surgery, they're going to be able to have that in this house community. That doesn't mean that the nuns are going to be hooking them up to IVs or whatever. I don't think I might be wrong about this, but Mr. Marks may be able to help out. That takes it to a whole different level. Right. The nuns are not going to be administering medication to these patients. That's my understanding. Right. I'd like to just get back to the language, though, because it says not more than eight persons who are handicapped. I mean, that's what it says. I mean, it doesn't say up to eight persons as long as some of them are handicapped. I'm just asking, is the interpretation we're supposed to read that you're supposed to read in caretakers into that definition of D? You know, I wasn't one of the people that worked on this in 2010. But there are people in this room that did. And I can tell you that their interpretation and the way it has been explained to me is that this is to be read, I guess they are to be read together, B and D, in order to maintain a lower number of people because that was the issue. Because what you're saying is if you looked at them separately, that you could have up to 12 people if eight of them were handicapped? I read it the same way. I mean, you could read it the same way. That is not the end. You should go one or the other. Right. I don't believe that's the intent of the way it was written, but I can't speak to that because I wasn't involved in the writing of it. But I do know that this resulted from trying to create some kind of limitation on what is a household or a housekeeping unit or a family unit. So there may be others that can speak to that, better than I can, but we are reading it and interpreting it as that eight is the total number. And that's also a reasonable interpretation if you read C, because C talks about two unrelated persons and eight children related to either. So if those were cumulative numbers, that would add up to 14 so far. So I think it's also reasonable to interpret the language to mean no more than eight total. But it's not that clear. It's not. Can I then rely upon B and C and have six? Let me ask this question. Plus two more plus my kids. The application itself that was approved, according to looking at the agenda, it's a decision that four unrelated persons and up to four handicapped persons can legally occupy the dwelling. But was the request that was sent to you, Mr. Marks, was that for up to eight people? Because that's the way I'm interpreting this, not 12. Yes, it was. As in, Art Crosby, who represents the Fair Housing Council, and actually represented the folks that were buying this particular home, he was in agreement that eight would be the total maximum. Yeah. Well, that's the way I'm reading this application that was filed up to eight people. One of the questions I would like to ask that the Reeds brought up is the fact of, if these people are going to be disabled for a period of time, is there handicap access into this home? And I doubt that we, I would think that if the ordinance put a time limit, it would probably be in violation of the Federal Act, the Fair Housing Act. because of the nature of the Fair Housing Act. So if the council tried to insert a time limit, that probably would not comply. I mean, that's just my guess, but I would say so because the nature of people who are medically fragile is not the same as time you have to pay your rent or whatever. Well, and further with, I think with HIPAA, I don't know how much we could even press to find out. whether they are handicapped. I think overall, unfortunately, the federal overlays on top of the local ordinances make it a little bit unworkable for us to investigate and really come to any kind of conclusions other than it says what it says, and if they say they're handicapped, we have to kind of... It's allowable. Because one of the things that I think is, I know that the Reed's concerned, We don't really know who's coming in and what their condition is and that sort of thing. But it's not like you can screen the applicants. To Mr. Gross, the Health Information Portability Act does not allow any of us to know what a patient's condition is. So the neighbors wouldn't know. We wouldn't know. Certainly that's up to the medical facility and the patient and the doctor. So we have no authority. So we realistically cannot screen who goes in and out of there and so forth. I am familiar with the missionaries of charity, and I do know that they do some wonderful work. And, you know, as to the point of what kind of condition or what condition they do have, you know, that's nothing that's within your control or our control. Again, that's between the patient and the – and that's not what we're here about today because that's an unrealistic expectation to know what condition that they have. And obviously, with the sisters not being willing to or not able to administer a pain medication, I also, having worked for the nuns for about 15 years, I certainly have faith in their abilities and their word. Although, to your concerns, I just wanted to make sure that obviously the nuns are not going to be administering drugs. Obviously, if somebody is discharged and given a prescription, they're allowed to use it. But having the oversight by the sisters in this facility, I think you're going to get quite a bit more accountability than that. This is not a homeless shelter that we're talking about here. This is going to be a medical facility to hopefully get these people back up on their feet. So, you know, with all due respect, I mean, I think that after listening to staff and Fair Housing and their interpretations, it seems like all this is legal and permissible. Even when they said they were administering medication? I'm not sure giving a pill transforms a care facility into a medical care facility. They cannot prescribe medicine. They cannot prescribe medicine. And so no sister can, you know, even if they were nurses, they could not prescribe medicine. Only medicine can be prescribed by a physician. So, you know, if they give somebody a pill that's been prescribed by their doctor, to me that's allowable. But, you know, they're not writing prescriptions for these patients because by law they're not allowed. Well, just in response, like I said, our concerns were greatly increased by the meeting on August 31st. What we have stated to you, they told us in an open meeting that they would dispense medication. I understand that, Mr. Reed, and I know not being privy to that meeting, I can't respond to that. But, I mean, I certainly respect your being here and your concerns and so forth. And I know that there's somebody else that wanted to speak. Is there anything else that you'd like to add? Ma'am, thank you very much. Ma'am, would you come up and state your name for the record, please? Sure. Paula Singer. I live at 110 Hamilton Park in Lexington. I live about one block from this facility. I helped Peggy Henson, our council member, organize the August 31st community meeting at the Village Branch Library. And I do have a complete recording of that meeting. if anybody at any point would be interested in listening to that. And I understand that you all are bound by the law and how you must adhere to it. But I do want to say that anecdotal comments about whether or not nuns give good medical care or whether or not nuns are going to be distributing or administering drugs is not evidence. It is simply a comment. And we have no proof of how this facility is going to be run because there is no oversight of any kind. And when there is no oversight of any kind of a facility that serves the poorest of the poor, apparently people that are not even eligible for aftercare through our Medicaid services, I really have to question what is going on. Surely these women are eligible for Medicaid under the new Obamacare. I don't think that's been repealed as yet. And so I do not understand why this facility is needed when there should be state, federal services and funding available to these people. Again, I understand that you are bound by the Fair Housing Act, but nationwide, there have been problems, including deaths, because cities and states have not issued regulation for the care and oversight of medical services to our most vulnerable population. And this is unfair to the most vulnerable among us. This is unfair to the neighborhoods where these homes tend to cluster. As we have noted, if you will look at this area of Versailles Road, property values will go down. More of these types of homes will occur, some which are profit-driven. such as the sober living homes, and I do have some information on those which are very similar in style as to this that I would like to go into the record. So while you may be bound by how you interpret the Fair Housing Act or how it is currently written, I do wish that somebody here would make a recommendation to the council when you render your decision that these types of homes be further investigated. And perhaps our dear council can do a little thinking out of the box and try to fashion some kind of oversight so that our most vulnerable and our struggling neighborhoods can live together and thrive under the Fair Housing Act. So I don't know if you can make a recommendation to the council, but I do think it is much needed. And I would like this information about what can happen when there is no oversight of these type of facilities occurs. Go ahead and you can give them that. And as you're talking about making a recommendation to the council, our Honorable Ms. Henson is with us today. So I'm sure that that because that that's obviously not what we're here for today. But but the Councilwoman is here and has heard your your comments. And if that's something that Council would like to to look at as a regulation, and I don't disagree with that whatsoever. And we are bound by the case we're hearing today. And so I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. And Mr. Chair, Miss Jones, my it's been a while. We're not the last resort. Our decision can be appealed to the circuit court. Yes. If we ran a decision not in your favor, we're not the last one to have an answer. You can take it to the circuit court. They've got much more means of digging into some of these issues than this board does. And also, I think it's important to state that the standard by which we hear this appeal, the standard that this appeal is measured against is whether or not the application or whether or not the decision of the Division of Planning was supported by substantial evidence. And so an appeal to try to overcome that decision means that you all have the burden of proving that they didn't have substantial evidence or that the decision was contrary to law or something like that. So to overcome that decision is we need more than simply people don't want this kind of facility in their neighborhood. but the Division of Planning is bound by the ordinance. We're bound by the ordinance as well. We can't make a decision outside of the bounds of the law, and we're not a legislature, so we can't make new law. Thank you, Mr. Cleve. Let me ask Ms. Henson. She wanted to say something. Would you please come up and officially state your name for the record? Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and for your service. I felt that this was a very difficult case. Difficult for me. I live on the street, the corner where this house is located. I'm a little farther away than the Reeds, but I empathize with them and the neighbors. I know what our law is. and I was here today out of just interest. I wanted to see how you would decide on this, but I also know the struggles that Lexington's faced with other issues like this, and I am definitely looking at reducing perhaps that number eight. I've worked with individuals with disabilities for many, many years, And I know that in many cases, eight is too many for one house. I think we learn from our surroundings and what we know and what we see and what we experience. And a person with a disability needs more integration than that. That's my opinion. and I'm not a certified doctor or anything, but just my years of experience with working with individuals. As for the missionaries of charity, I have great respect for them, and I don't, you know, if they had come perhaps 40 years ago to Fershells Road, they would have been welcomed. But today, it is a different atmosphere there, and we're working very, very hard to improve it the best we can. It is inundated with different types of social service agencies. But I also know by law, we can't pick and choose who our neighbors are. So everyone has rights in this country to live where they want. The missionaries of charity spoke, and I did not get any indication that, from what I was told, the individuals that would be living there would be like if you or I had had a hip replacement or shoulder repair, and you needed someone just to kind of be a companion to you through your recovery. That was the understanding I received from this property. And again, I appreciate and respect all the remarks about HIPAA. All those things have to be considered. As individuals, we all have rights, no matter where we come from. But thank you for hearing this, and I appreciate the reads for bringing it forward to give it further vetting. So thank you. Any questions for Ms. Simpson? Thank you. Mr. E., we'll give you one more comment. Yes, sir. Just two points. Number one, and this isn't a matter of we don't want this in our neighborhood. It's a matter we don't want another one in our neighborhood. We have got within a one-block area, Messner Home, some type of mental health facility, then a drug rehab center and a shelter. And that's just in one stretch of Versailles Road within a one-block area. Now, there's even more to this. If you look, Messner Home extends behind onto Hill Rise Court. and there's other facilities in that area. So this isn't just a neighborhood where we're saying we don't want it in our neighborhood. We've got it in our neighborhood. We are living with that. We don't want any more, though. Number two, the other thing that I would say, just simply request of you all, if before you render a decision, you would listen to the tape or the recording of Ms. Singer and take that into account and listen not to our statements but to what the sister said and render your decision accordingly. I appreciate it. Thank you. I just want to say, Mr. Reid, that this particular board is pretty sensitive to housing issues. We've had that kind of issue before us in the past. It's a very complicated issue. As the Councilwoman said, we're aware of the fact that it's a complicated issue with many parts. We're also aware of the fact that, and I agree with you, that your area has become saturated with these kinds of similar kinds of facilities. And I wish there were more we could do for you. Well, just asking for a start. Thank you. and maybe push the envelope slightly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reid. Does anybody have any other questions? Any members of the board? If not, I think we've heard from a lot of different parties on a very, very difficult issue and situation, but I think it's time to the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we deny the appeal brought by Mr. and Mrs. Reed in PLN BOA 16-033 for the reasons primarily from what I heard in the hearing today, the testimony of the witnesses, the rationale from staff, the explanation by legal counsel, and the substantial evidence that we heard today, especially taking into account the text of the ordinance that we saw. Thank you, Ms. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Myers seconds. All in favor to deny the appeal, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Gross opposed? Okay. Please note that in the record. Before you all leave, Mr. Reed, I just want to thank you for your time and due diligence, you and Mrs. Reed especially. We have some very difficult challenges sometimes. We are a volunteer board, and we listen to applicants, and we listen to opposition, and we listen to staff and try to make a value judgment as well as based on the law and so forth. And sometimes these decisions are very, very difficult and very challenging. And we appreciate your time, and thank you for coming today. I'd like to ask if any of the board members have anything that they would like to be heard at this time. Mr. Glover, you know we're having an early meeting next month, November 18th. I may not be here, Mr. Chair. Very good. It conflicts with the Board of Governors that happens to, and it's only in November that I have questions about my attendance. Very good. Okay. Well, hopefully you can make it, but we certainly understand if you cannot. Does anybody have anything else? Mr. Marks. I just wanted to announce that we have found a replacement for Jimmy Emmons, the former BOA senior planner. She's not here today. She just happened to get married recently, and so she's in Cancun right now on her honeymoon. But her name is Autumn, and I'm saying this early so I can get her name pronounced right in case I have to practice over the next month, but Goddard Wies. G-O-D-E-R-W-I-S. Annunciate that again, Mr. Marksang. Goddard Wies. Okay. I may just call her Autumn. Autumn sounds pretty good. If there's no other business before the board, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.