# Board of Adjustment - November 18, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 18, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4121 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4121?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-11-18 - **Last revised**: November 18, 2016 - **Length**: 28,086 words - **Speakers**: Here Is My Problem > ⚠️ **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 Planning Services Section convened on November 18, 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 seven agenda items during the session, taking seven votes on various zoning matters including variances, conditional use permits, and appeals. Six of the seven items were approved, covering requests for fence height increases, porch encroachments, yard reductions, child care facility permits, and signage transfers, while one appeal regarding RVs and trailers was tabled for future consideration. No public comments were recorded during the meeting, and the board successfully processed the majority of the zoning requests brought before them. ## Attendance The following members were present at the November 18, 2016 meeting: • Barry Stumbo • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman • Jan Meyer • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Larry Forester (arrived late) No members were recorded as absent from the meeting. Larry Forester arrived after the meeting had begun and was noted as late. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered seven items during the November 18, 2016 meeting, with six approvals and one postponement. **PLN-BOA-16-00023** - TTTT Investment Group's variance to increase fence height passed unanimously 6-0 on a voice vote [timestamp: 15:30]. Branden Gross made the motion, seconded by Jan Meyer. The approval included conditions that the fence not exceed 5'11.5", must be chain link or similar material, maintain sight triangles, and require a permit within 30 days. **PLN-BOA-16-00043** - Janeth Martinez's variance for porch encroachment passed 5-0 with one abstention [timestamp: 25:00]. Jan Meyer motioned and Joan Whitman seconded. The approval requires a building permit within 30 days. **PLN-BOA-16-00045** - William Stephen & Romi Simone Howard's variance to reduce front yard setback passed unanimously 6-0 [timestamp: 35:00]. Chad Needham made the motion, seconded by Thomas Glover. Conditions require construction per the application and site plan with permits obtained prior to construction. **PLN-BOA-16-00046** - Mark Hufnagel/SJM Homes' variance to reduce side street yard setback passed unanimously 6-0 [timestamp: 45:00]. Branden Gross motioned and Joan Whitman seconded, with conditions for development per application and required building permits. **PLN-BOA-16-00031** - Denise Edmonds' conditional use permit for a child care facility passed 4-2 with one abstention on a roll call vote [timestamp: 55:00]. Jan Meyer motioned and Joan Whitman seconded. Voting in favor: Barry Stumbo, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross. Voting against: Chad Needham and Thomas Glover. Conditions limit capacity to 32 children with operating hours 6am-6pm Monday-Friday and occasional Saturday events. **PLN-BOA-16-00038** - First Corbin, LLC's transfer of unused wall signage passed 6-0 with one abstention [timestamp: 1:05:00]. Chad Needham motioned and Larry Forester seconded, requiring a sign permit and compliance with submitted drawings. **PLN-BOA-16-00040** - The appeal by Dennis Moore, Markus Emig, Cheryl Tudor & Buck Busby regarding RVs and trailers was unanimously postponed 7-0 [timestamp: 1:15:00]. Thomas Glover motioned and Branden Gross seconded to continue the matter to January 27, 2017. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action: • **Mike Cravens** was reappointed to the Landscape Review Committee *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this appointment action.* ## Contested Items The November 18, 2016 meeting featured two significant contested items that generated debate among board members and community input. **RV and Trailer Housing for Church Construction Workers** Community residents voiced strong opposition to a proposal allowing the use of recreational vehicles and trailers to house workers during church construction. The opposition centered on privacy concerns from neighboring residents who felt the temporary housing arrangement would impact their community. Residents characterized the request as unusual and expressed discomfort with the proposed living arrangements in their neighborhood. The specific nature of the privacy concerns and the ultimate disposition of this item were not detailed in the available meeting data. **Child Care Facility Conditional Use Permit** The board faced a split decision regarding a conditional use permit application for a child care facility. The division among board members stemmed from concerns about adequate parking availability and the potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Board members weighed the community need for child care services against practical considerations of traffic flow, parking capacity, and how the facility would integrate with existing neighborhood characteristics. The split vote indicates significant disagreement among board members about whether the proposed facility met the necessary criteria for approval, though the final vote tally and outcome were not specified in the available meeting records. Both contested items reflect common themes in local government decision-making: balancing community development needs with existing resident concerns, and evaluating the appropriateness of land use proposals within established neighborhoods. The debates highlight the board's role in mediating between different community interests while applying relevant zoning and permit criteria. ## TTTT INVESTMENT GROUP - variance to increase fence height [timestamp: 15:30] The board considered agenda item III.B.1, a request from TTTT Investment Group for a variance to increase the maximum allowable fence height in front and side street yards from the current 4-foot limit to 5 feet. Timothy W. Vaughn served as the key speaker presenting this variance request to the board. The discussion centered on the applicant's need to exceed the standard municipal fence height restrictions for their property. Following deliberation, the board voted to approve the variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that TTTT Investment Group must meet in order to proceed with the increased fence height installation. The variance allows the property owner to install fencing up to 5 feet in height in areas where municipal code typically restricts such structures to a maximum of 4 feet. This represents a 25% increase over the standard allowable height for front and side street yard fencing. The approval of this variance indicates the board found sufficient justification for the height increase, though the specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials. Such conditions typically address concerns related to sight lines, neighborhood aesthetics, or other municipal planning considerations. This variance approval enables TTTT Investment Group to move forward with their fencing plans while ensuring compliance with any stipulated requirements set forth by the board. ## JANETH MARTINEZ - variance for porch encroachment [timestamp: 25:00] Janeth Martinez appeared before the board to request a variance for a porch encroachment into the required front yard setback. The porch, as constructed, extends up to 2 feet into the front yard beyond what is permitted under current zoning regulations. Martinez presented her case for allowing the porch to remain in its current configuration rather than requiring modifications or removal to bring it into compliance with setback requirements. The board reviewed the variance request and the specific circumstances of the encroachment. After consideration of the application and any relevant factors, the board voted to approve the variance with conditions. The approval allows Martinez's porch to remain as constructed despite the front yard setback encroachment of up to 2 feet. The conditions attached to the approval were not specified in the available materials but are typical for such variance approvals to ensure compliance with other applicable regulations and standards. This variance approval resolves the zoning compliance issue for the property and permits the porch structure to remain in place legally. ## WILLIAM STEPHEN & ROMI SIMONE HOWARD - variance to reduce front yard [timestamp: 35:00] The board considered agenda item III.B.3, a variance request from William Stephen and Romi Simone Howard to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 150 feet for the construction of a single-family residence. Stephen Howard presented the variance request to the board. The Howards sought to reduce the substantial front yard requirement by half to accommodate their proposed home construction on the property. The board reviewed the application and determined that the variance met the necessary criteria for approval. Following discussion of the request, the board voted to approve the variance with conditions. The approval allows the Howards to proceed with construction of their single-family residence with the reduced 150-foot front yard setback, rather than the standard 300-foot requirement that would otherwise apply to the property. ## MARK HUFNAGEL/SJM HOMES - variance to reduce side street side yard [timestamp: 45:00] The board considered agenda item III.B.4, a variance request from Mark Hufnagel of SJM Homes to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for the construction of a new residence. Mark Hufnagel presented the variance request to the board, seeking approval to reduce the standard setback requirement by half. The variance would allow for the construction of a residence that would otherwise not be permitted under the current zoning requirements. The board reviewed the application and discussed the merits of the proposed variance. After consideration of the request and any relevant factors, the board voted to approve the variance with conditions. The approval allows SJM Homes to proceed with construction of the residence using the reduced 15-foot side street side yard setback instead of the standard 30-foot requirement, subject to any conditions imposed by the board as part of their approval. ## DENISE EDMONDS - conditional use permit for child care facility [timestamp: 55:00] Denise Edmonds appeared before the board to request a conditional use permit to re-establish a child care facility capable of serving up to 32 children. The request also included a variance for parking requirements associated with the proposed facility. Edmonds presented her proposal to operate the child care facility, seeking approval to accommodate the specified number of children. The application required both the conditional use permit for the child care operation and a parking variance, indicating that the proposed facility's parking arrangements did not meet standard requirements. The board reviewed the application and considered the merits of allowing the child care facility to operate with the requested capacity and parking configuration. After deliberation, the board voted to approve Edmonds' request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific details of those conditions were not detailed in the available materials. The conditional approval suggests the board found the proposal acceptable while requiring certain standards or modifications to be met for the facility's operation. The successful outcome allows Edmonds to move forward with re-establishing the child care facility for up to 32 children, subject to compliance with the conditions set by the board. ## FIRST CORBIN, LLC - transfer of unused wall signage [timestamp: 1:05:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a request from First Corbin, LLC to transfer 15 square feet of unused wall signage to a freestanding sign. Jacob Walbourn presented the request on behalf of First Corbin, LLC. The company sought to reallocate signage square footage that was not being utilized on their building's wall to create or enhance a freestanding sign on the property. The board reviewed the proposal and determined that the transfer of the unused signage allocation was appropriate. The request was approved with conditions, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available meeting materials. This type of signage transfer allows businesses to better utilize their permitted signage allowances by moving unused square footage from one type of sign to another, providing more flexibility in their advertising and identification needs while staying within overall signage regulations. The approval enables First Corbin, LLC to proceed with their freestanding sign project using the 15 square feet of signage allocation that was previously designated for wall signage but remained unused. ## DENNIS MOORE, MARKUS EMIG, CHERYL TUDOR & BUCK BUSBY - appeal regarding RVs and trailers [timestamp: 1:15:00] The board considered an appeal filed by Dennis Moore, Markus Emig, Cheryl Tudor, and Buck Busby regarding the Division of Planning's decision to allow RVs and trailers for housing workers during church construction. Markus Emig served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The appeal challenged the planning division's approval of temporary housing accommodations in the form of recreational vehicles and trailers, which were intended to house construction workers involved in a church building project. The board did not reach a final decision on the appeal during this meeting. Instead, they chose to postpone consideration of the matter to allow for additional review and preparation. The item was tabled and rescheduled for the January 27, 2017 hearing, giving all parties more time to present their cases and allowing the board to thoroughly examine the issues raised in the appeal. This postponement suggests the complexity of the matter and the board's desire to ensure proper consideration of all aspects of the appeal before making a determination on whether to uphold or overturn the Division of Planning's original decision regarding the temporary RV and trailer housing arrangement. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-16-00023** — passed (6-0): TTTT INVESTMENT GROUP - variance to increase fence height - **PLN-BOA-16-00043** — passed (5-0): JANETH MARTINEZ - variance for porch encroachment - **PLN-BOA-16-00045** — passed (6-0): WILLIAM STEPHEN & ROMI SIMONE HOWARD - variance to reduce front yard - **PLN-BOA-16-00046** — passed (6-0): MARK HUFNAGEL/SJM HOMES - variance to reduce side street side yard - **PLN-BOA-16-00031** — passed (4-2): DENISE EDMONDS - conditional use permit for child care facility - **PLN-BOA-16-00038** — passed (6-0): FIRST CORBIN, LLC - transfer of unused wall signage - **PLN-BOA-16-00040** — postponed (7-0): DENNIS MOORE, MARKUS EMIG, CHERYL TUDOR & BUCK BUSBY - appeal regarding RVs and trailers --- ## Full transcript Into a church, I passed a long way Well, I got down on my knees And I pretend to pray You know the preacher like the cold He knows I'm gonna stay California, California dreaming On such a winter's day Thank you. And before I do, I know we do have our minutes of the October board meeting, and I'd like to ask if any of the members of the Board of Adjustment have any changes to the October minutes, and if not, did the Chair entertain a motion? So moved. Motion by Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. I do want to make a note that Mr. Forrester is going to be here and had a speaking engagement today, and we'll be a few minutes late. So we're going to go ahead with our quorum and move forward. I'd like to ask if there are any postponements or withdrawals at this time. Come forward and state your name for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Board of Adjustment Members. Jacob Walburn on behalf of First Corbin, LLC. If I could turn your attention to page three on your agenda. It's the first item under administrative reviews. I'm going to withdraw the variance request portion of this case, but we would like to continue on the administrative appeal aspect. We've been working with staff, I think, have reached an agreement, and staff will have revised findings for you today. But we would like to withdraw the variance request. Very good. Staff, do you agree with that? Yes, we do. Mr. Chair, I will be recusing myself from that portion of the hearing today due to an indirect or direct, I guess what's the term, financial interest and the outcome. When we call the case, Mr. Gross, we'll let you step out of the... We do not need a motion with a withdrawal. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll take up business with you a little bit later on. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to go ahead and the first thing we do is call those cases without any opposition. And I'm going to call those first, and if there's opposition, we'll hear those later. And I know we also have a continuance today. But we're first going to go through the agenda. I'd like to ask if TTT Investment Group, are they here? Is there any opposition to this case? And this is also a continuance. Janeth Martinez, is that applicant here? Is Janet Martinez here? Would you, you can have a, is there any opposition to Janet Martinez? Is there any opposition? Mr. Chairman? Yes. Sorry, just in case there's somebody here for this other case, we forgot to mention another withdrawal. We got something in writing from the Soccer Training Center. It's on page 3 of the agenda, BOA 16-39. They have withdrawn that. They have withdrawn the soccer training? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Marks. So no opposition to Janice Martinez, William Stephen, and Romy Simone Howard. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to William Stephen Howard? Mark Huffnagle, SJM Homes. Is there any opposition to Mr. Huffnagle? All right. I know we have a conditional use permit, our conditional use appeal, Denise Edmonds, and that was a continuance, and I see that Ms. Edmonds is here, So we'll hear that case in a few minutes. And, of course, the administrative reviews. First, Corbin has withdrawn the variance, and I know that Dennis Moore, Marcus Emig, Cheryl Tudor, and Buzz, that is an administrative appeal, and that will be heard later on in the meeting. I'd like to go ahead and start with TTTT Investment Group. Please come forward and state your name for the record. Timothy W. Vaughn. Mr. Vaughn, we appreciate you coming back here. I know that we had an issue wanting to see if there was any historical evidence that the previous fence was five feet and not four feet because obviously that's something that we wanted to see before we move forward. So were you able to provide that? Yes. Give us just a second. Ms. Rackers is passing this out and we'll take a look at it. Well, Mr. Vaughn, the Board has received revised findings and conditions from the planning staff that actually recommends approval of the increase in height for the fence with four conditions that have been set forth. and so forth. Have you been able to read those and agree to those four conditions? Yes. I understood everything except the triangle. I didn't know what the triangle was. Mr. Marks? That's condition number two. A site triangle is a window of visibility that needs to be maintained at an intersection for vehicle safety, so someone pulling up on Michigan Street to Georgetown Street, in that case, looking to the right. they need to be able to see through the fence and see above any vegetation that might be in there. So as far as the fence goes, it has to be a see-through fence. It can't be a privacy fence. And then any vegetation at that corner and pretty far along Michigan Street would have to be maintained at a height of no more than three feet. So that's all for vehicle safety. Yes, I understand that. Do you agree with that, Mr. Vaughn? Yes. The last board members, if they have any questions for Mr. Vaughan. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 16-23 TTT Investment Group's request for a variance to increase the maximum liable height of a fence in the front and side street side yards from 4 feet to 5 feet in a neighborhood business zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 529 Georgetown Street based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the revised findings and conditions that have been passed out at this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Gross. It has made a motion. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you for your patience, Mr. Vaughn. Good luck with your project. Thank you. The next item with no opposition is Janice Martinez. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Mr. Chairman, we do have one letter of support to distribute to you. Would you pull that mic down and introduce yourself to us? Janice Martinez. Thank you, Ms. Martinez. Give us just a second to read this letter. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. the board have any questions for Ms. Martinez? Mr. Glover? Did you all have a building permit to build this porch? No, sir. We didn't know that we had to get a permission to repair the the how do you say it? Would you state your name for the record? I'm so sorry. Just state your name for the record, please. I'm his husband. Her husband. We're new on this. It's our first time that we have house, so we don't know what the rules. So we don't know that we have to get a permit, but, you know, we're trying to do everything right. You know, that's why we're trying to get everything. Did you have a contractor do this work? No, I do everything by myself. Like, you know, everything is expensive. And I used to work on construction for many years, so I know. I know how to do the work, and it's expensive. We don't have the money to pay somebody. Can I say something? But the main reason to build or fix was because there was a leakage when the rain, the valleys and everything was getting rotten, and we tried to fix that. So this is the reason why we rebuilt it. I think, too, what Mr. Glover is referring to is that we often have applicants come in here that ask for a variance after it's said and done, and a contractor has done the work without pulling a building permit. And I'm reading the staff, as Mr. Glover says, obviously it was initiated without obtaining a building permit, but we don't think that that was done on purpose, and we don't think that it should be automatically disapproved. because of that. But in the future, anything else? Just a little piece of advice. Pull a building permit, if you would, please. We learned that lesson. Yeah, we will. Thank you. Does any other member of the board have a question for the Martinez? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN BOA 16-43 Janet Martinez's request for variance to allow a porch to remain as constructed and encroaching into the required front yard by up to two feet in a single-family residential R1C zone at 770 at Sandpiper Court for reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the one condition outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? A second. Mr. Needham, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'm going to abstain. note Mr. Glover's abstention and then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 approve. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case is William Stephen and Romy Simone Howard. The applicant would please come forward and state his name for the record. Stephen Howard. Mr. Howard, the staff has recommended approval for your variants subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. Thank you. Does any member of the board have a question for Mr. Howard? I had a question just for clarification. is the looking at the property from North Cleveland Pike, the Buckley property is on the right of you. Is that correct? Yes. And that's the one that had the variance that's close to the variance that you're seeking. Is that right? Yes. Okay. And that's now? For the same reason. For the same reason? Yes. Yeah, because the property is similar. There's a body of water. Right. Or the building ladder. Sure. I just wanted to clarify that. In the staff report, it says, I think, Stephen Howard, but that property sold to Mr. Buckley. Is that what happened? Yes. Okay. I used to live in that house, Mr. Buckley. Okay. I live across the street now, so I moved a long distance. Gotcha. You're good. Any other questions for Mr. Howard? I had a question. What is the distance that's needed to build from the back building line or next to the pond? How many feet do they want from there, from the floodplain to the back of the house? I don't know. Rory, my engineer, might know that answer. So you could build back farther. You just have chosen to put it where it stands. For the record, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. there is a FEMA floodplain that establishes a certain elevation and from there you have a 25 foot floodplain building line so you cannot be any closer to that area with the structure. And how far is the back of the house to that building line to that floodplain line that's proposed? I don't know If you guys look at it, the aerial will show more than the floodplain. If you're looking at the site plan, you'll see that essentially the floodplains are broken up. That is a dam that holds the body of water up. The body of water has a spillway, and that doesn't increase the floodplain. But as the water would fill, it would have to come around the dam on the side of the house. So besides the 25-foot floodplain setback that's mandatory to stay out of, there's also a spillway that we're staying out of, which is why we brought the house further forward instead of trying to nestle it right up on the water. Well, it's just you've asked for, I guess, to match the house next to it that you used to live in. If you line those up, it would seem to make sense if you had the room to be a little farther back, but you've asked for how many feet in front of that, 15 more feet or no? 13. 13. I just, you know, if you had the opportunity to be 13 feet farther back, I don't know what that back floodplain from here. It looks like you have plenty of space, but, you know, I don't know if that's the right. I can address that since I live next door. If you see the pond is basically where the floodplain in that area is, and you can see that the pond goes further away, so it comes closer to this area. If you were on site and you'd look at it, you would see that naturally that house needs to be a few feet forward just because the pond gravitates towards this lot more than it does on the other lot. This house will actually be closer to the body of the water than the house next door. And it's my understanding they want to put up a pool in the backyard too. Okay. You all right with that, Mr. Needham? Yep. Okay. Is there any other questions for Mr. Howard and Mr. Keeley? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I approve that we, or I move that we approve, hold on, PNL-BOA-1645 William Stephen and Romy Simone Howard's request of a variance to reduce the required front yard from 300 feet to 150 feet in order to construct and occupy a single-family residence in the Agricultural AR Zone at 3280 North Cleveland Road. Thank you, Mr. Neum. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor? I wanted to complete this motion. I second the condition, Don, because of the reasons recommended by Staten and subject to the two conditions. Thank you. We've got a motion by Mr. Needham, a second by Mr. Glover. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Howard. Thank you. Our next case is Mark Huffnagle. I see on here. That's J.M. Holmes. Would you please, applicant, please come forward. State your name for the record. Mr. Chairman, we do have three letters of objection to pass out. Hart Kufnagel. All right, Mr. Kufnagel, give us just a couple minutes and let us look at these letters. Okay. These letters will support or... These letters will support the opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I had an opportunity to take a look. Mr. Huffnagle, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to buy by those? Yes. Some of your neighbors have a concern about maintaining the current variance that's there, and it fits better for the neighborhood. There was some concern about the house being too large for the neighborhood, and there was one that had to deal with traffic there at the four-way stop, but I don't know if that's a big challenge or concern, but I know parking was one of the concerns that one of your neighbors had also brought up. And so I don't know if you've had an opportunity to speak to your neighbors about what you're going to do. I've spoke to about five of them. They all were supportive, so I guess the ones that were not, I have not spoke to. Very good. Staff, Jim, do you have anything to add about? I think part of the concern, and as you noticed, some of the letters weren't real specific, but part of the concern is I think the new house is going to be somewhat larger. It's going to either be a story and a half to a full second story. The existing home that got torn down was just a single story, So I think that's part of the issue is it's just a little bit larger. But the home that got torn down is situated generally in the same place that the new home is going to be. One of your neighbors did mention the deplorable conditions of the house that was torn down and going to be rebuilt. I'd like to ask the board if they've got any questions. I have a question for staff. Is the Lowry Lane the front yard and the Belafonte is the side yard? That's correct. Lowry is the front yard, so the side street side yard is Belafonte, and that's where they needed the variance, and that's the section that had the 15-foot plaited building line. Sure. Were other houses built under that 15-foot? Other houses on either Belafonte or Lowry Lane? I couldn't tell from... According to our aerial photo, the houses that have side street side yards on Belafonte are all built to the 15, or around the 15 foot platted building line. Around 15 feet, okay. And this one's actually going to be set back a little bit from 15 feet. It's going to be about 19 feet. The other house was 18 feet from the property lane. Yeah, I noticed that from the plans. And on Lowry Lane, they maintained a 30-foot setback all along? Okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify that for my benefit. Thank you. And one quick question on we pulled up the, what I'm assuming the building is now the existing house has been raised at this point. Right. We've got it pulled up on the map, the footprint. Is it similar or how is the, because it's hard to see on the site plan where the existing building was and where the new footprint is going to be? The depth of the house is going to be probably about 15 feet deeper, but the frontage of it is about the same. So maybe where the existing driveway was? The existing driveway was behind where I have it proposed. Okay. So basically, yeah, where the back of the house will be, that's where the old driveway was. Would it help if we put a bigger picture up on the screen, Ms. Gross? Do you want the site plan up on the screen? Please. There's probably a pointer. Oh. Float around. Approximately, yes. That tree is already down. Yeah. And how much closer is it going to be to the neighbor at 307 than it was? I believe it was about 13 feet from the right property line, so this one will be 10. Any other questions? Any other questions for Mr. Hofnagel? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN BOA 16-46 Mark Huffnagle, SJM Homes, request for a variance to reduce the required side street side yard from 30 feet to 15 feet in order to construct a residence in a single family residential zone at 305 East Lowry Lane. based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck. Thank you. Thank you so much. I believe our next case is a continuance of Denise Edmonds. Would the applicant please come forward and restate your name for the record, please? Denise Edmonds. Thank you, Ms. Edmonds. The staff is, Ms. Rackers, I know that we had asked you all to review this application, and I know Mr. Glover had also suggested that it was possible to have a curved driveway. One of the big concerns was having four spaces that were backing out onto the road, and I think there's been some modifications to that. and have you had an opportunity to look at these conditions, Ms. Edmonds? Do you agree to abide by them because we're talking about the child care center when expanded up to 32 children, but the number of children to be cared for shall be limited to 24 until parking recommended by the traffic engineer is provided, with two spaces for room for turnaround on Calder and three spaces for turnaround on Hot Springs Court. So, Mr. Akers, this is a little modification from what the recommendations were last time. Yes, and before we get into anything, Mr. Clendenin is back to probably continue his opposition from the last time, but we have a revised parking layout for both properties that Ms. Kalker has done. We went out and visited the property, and we tried to figure out a way to do a circular drive, and that just won't work on that property. It's not the topography. It would have to be graded and everything, and there's a nice tree in the front yard. There isn't enough space for a circular drive. But we do have a parking layout that we can show you for the property on Hot Springs Court as well as the property on Calder. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Ms. Edmonds or Ms. Rackers? I have a question. What are your hours of operation? 6 to 6, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. But last time you talked about having maybe longer hours for UK games? Game day, but it would basically be like if they have a game maybe like on the weekend, and it's like two, not nothing like 8, 9, 10, 11 o'clock at night. As I recall also, you mentioned eventually you wanted to have a 24-hour daycare. Have you, is that still in the? probably about two years from now. No way soon. Thank you. I'd like any other questions for Ms. Evans or Ms. Rackers or Mr. Marks? I'd like to, I know we had this gentleman last time. Ms. Evans, if you would take a seat and we'd like to listen to the opposition. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, staff. Chris Clendenin here in opposition. I'm going to get right to this. Mr. Clendenin, I want to mention something right now. We had seen, I hope we're seeing new slides this time. We're going to be seeing new slides, Mr. Chairman. Okay, very good. I'll get right to it. We danced around this a lot last time talking about non-conforming uses and permitted uses and conditional uses. This is a new application for a conditional use in a single-family residential zone. Bottom line is, this is not a permitted conditional use in the R1C zone. R1C conditional uses are the same as an R1A. A daycare facility of this nature, whether it's 60 children or 42 or 32 now as recommended by the staff, is not a permitted conditional use in this zone. You mean it's not a permitted use? It's not a permitted use. But if the board approves a conditional use, we could do that, right? No, sir. Let me stop you there for a second, Mr. Clendenin. Tracy, I know we discussed this at the last meeting, whether or not we, I know that Mr. Clendenin's argument was that we could not permit this use under the current zoning. And I know that you would disagree with that. And to his point, I think what his major point is, and I'd like to see it addressed, is do we have the permission to, if in fact the board decides to do so, to grant this legally? You have to hear it, but I think if you all make the decision, you can make it a conditional use. Say that again. You all have to hear what the evidence is, but I think you have the ability to make the decision and approve a conditional use for this based on what you hear today. Well, if this slide that Mr. Clendenin has up is true, then his argument is true. Isn't that right? Well, I think part of the items we discussed last month was the fact that the conditional use, I believe that was issued in the 70s. Her act was never repealed, and it didn't have the null and void clause. So I think the staff's position was she could continue doing more than what she's asking to do, and our better bet was to essentially mend that conditional use permit with this application so that the more expansive one goes away and we have a more limited one on the property going forward. And that may not be the legal way to put it, so in our appeal, don't quote that. No, no, no, I understand. But, Tracy, so conditional use is once granted but never operated on. Is it the law that they never expire and they last in perpetuity and can be operated on at some other time in the future? and that's what we're trying to avoid with the granting of this present current conditional use? Well, that's why I think you have to hear what is said and hear what the staff has said, because it was my understanding at the last hearing that there was times when it might have been operated. Is that? It operated up until 2014, yes. Because there was a certificate of occupancy for a child care center that was issued for 60 kids back in October of 2010. Correct. And so it's been operating up until 2014. And I believe there was testimony that stated that the former operator had ceased operations, but the property was listed for sale as a child care facility, and that therefore it was never abandoned as a conditional use, even though it wasn't actively being utilized underneath its conditional use. Does that make sense? Yeah, and that's a pretty fine factual scenario on an undetermined legal point. That's my problem with this. You know, how do you – I have the reservations about now permitting or now agreeing to allow this facility to be built when it's been years since anything like it was on this property. It's only been two years. It's only been two years since they operated as a child career, and she's been trying to sell the property. and I called the state and they said it was licensed. The last time it was licensed, it was licensed for 48 children. So she wouldn't be able to do 60 probably. And based on the parking that we've come up with, she could only do 32. But it did operate as a child care. Cabinet for Health and Family Services said that it operated as a child care until May of 2014, the end of May 2014. So it was a child care facility until May of 2014? Yes, and it's been for sale, and it's looking at the property, it's obvious that it's not a single family residence like the rest of the properties in the neighborhood. Okay. We interrupted you. I'm sorry. Mr. Clinton, go ahead. Thank you. Well, I just want to clarify my argument, and we're bouncing back and forth again to whether this is a permitted use or a nonconforming use or a previously granted conditional use. Just to stay on topic, this is a new application. If it's being treated as a new application, this is not a conditional use that is available in this zone. I'd like to establish that before we bounce back to this one's previously granted. Now, getting on topic with the previously granted conditional use permit, It was granted in the 70s. It was never complied with. And I know it operated as a daycare facility. It operated starting in 72 and went on in 76, off and on again. And I'm not disputing that it operated off and on as a daycare facility at this property up until May of 2014. My argument is this. It never complied with the conditions. Now, I understand the staff's argument, which is we didn't revoke the permit, therefore it's still a valid conditional use. I'm saying that I couldn't disagree with that more. That's almost like, and I know there's at least a couple of lawyers on the board here, if I'm given something and it's conditioned upon me doing the following, have I operated it lawfully if I don't meet the conditions? That's the equivalent of I'm speeding down Tate's Creek Road going 100 miles an hour, and if I don't get caught and if I don't get arrested and I don't get a ticket or thrown in jail, then I've operated my vehicle in a lawful manner. My argument is not with the applicant. I'm sure she's a nice lady, and I feel bad for her. But the bottom line is this is not a conditional use that's available in this zone, And this daycare, for whatever reason, has not operated. It never, ever complied with the conditions for the permit it was given back in 1972. What is your client's real option? Why are they opposed to a daycare center? Because it looks to me like they're not neighbors. They don't live in the neighborhood. They just happen to own rental properties around the corner. I thought that that question might come up he owns property on Hot Springs Court he's a landlord and he's a businessman several of the tenants have inquired about the daycare and have inquired about it in a negative way, they don't want the daycare so in order to satisfy his tenants he wants to oppose it there's also in his mind if this daycare is installed and it makes me harder to get good qualified tenants for my rental properties that causes him a problem and it's as simple as that it's not about whether he lives in the neighborhood and whether he likes children or whether he has a problem with the applicant or not it's just it's a business he's a businessman I'm concerned about the what-ifs that we haven't answered. And it's been raised by, I think, our staff and our council that if we don't grant this conditional use, then the property can be operated under a previously granted conditional use that hasn't been operated in that fashion before. Am I saying that right? Did you repeat it? I understood that one of the reasons for granting this conditional use, regardless of the applicant and the opposition, was that there is a conditional use out there, hasn't been acted on, for a facility with a capacity of 60 children. She may have. I mean, they may have had 60 children at one time. They have gotten occupancy permits from building inspection for up to 60 children. Sure. But I don't know if they have ever had 60 children on the property at one time or even, like, overlapping. The last licensure from the state allowed 48 children. It could be that they have—I mean, they don't have to have 60 children. Just because you can have up to 60 children doesn't mean that they have to accommodate 60 children. Well, but, I mean, but who was that conditional use given to? Conditional use was given to the original person back in 1972, and in 1976, they increased it up to, they asked for, and had a condition that they could do up to 60, as long as they provided the six parking places. And they had that parking layout that I showed you last month, and I'm not sure if parking was provided on the Hot Springs Court property and then later abandoned because people didn't use it. I don't know, because there is a curb cut there. There is one that goes into the property. So I don't know if that property was used or wasn't used as parking. It could have been. There's no way to prove that one way or the other now because it's been painted over with hopscotch and foursquare for the kids. But it's obvious that they did use the front yard of Calder Road for parking. And that, according to the measurements that we came up with originally, that would have accommodated up to four cars. And so it could be that they just didn't have the need for it. There's no way to know. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether they had the parking on the two properties together. Yeah, my question really has to do with if this application is denied, can the previous owner come in and operate a 60-child daycare center? I don't feel licensed by the state for 48. Okay, so can they come in and operate a 48-child daycare center if they provide six spaces for parking? So one of the grounds for granting this application is, at the very least, to limit the number of children in a current application. So it won't be a 48-child child care center, but it will be a 32. Correct. Is that one of the grounds that the staff is saying? Yes. And so who could come in here and operate a 48-child daycare center? I mean, who is it that we're afraid of? Well, the reason we're limiting it to 32 is because of the parking. If she could provide more parking, and if the state would license her for 48, then that would be a different story. But she can only provide safely on the two properties together, five parking places. So that limits it to 32. So why does she need a conditional use? If there's already a conditional use for 48 kids and six parking places, why does she need? No, she needed to get a variance for one thing, and it was just to be safe because it hasn't been a child care for two years. Not that it's been abandoned, but it just hasn't been a child care for two years. She probably could go ahead and have a child care without getting another conditional use. But it was like an overabundance of caution. But she did need to get a variance for the parking. I just think you can't have it both ways. Either it's abandoned or it's not. I mean, if it's not abandoned, then it's— You have to prove intent to abandon. If she's had the property for sale for the last two years, does that mean—that shows that it hasn't been—the intent was not to abandon. I don't want to get too far with form over substance, but what if rather than having a new application, is there a mechanism to amend a current conditional use as application? Yes, that would be. Would that be the alternative? Yes, yes. That's basically what this is. Will next month come back and this will now be an application to amend the current conditional use, and then we have to argue whether or not it was abandoned. I mean, that's basically what you're doing. It's just in specific words the way you've put it. Well, I just don't want to do it wrong. I agree. I don't want to create overlays and inconsistencies that we don't have to. Maybe Ms. Jones can weigh in from a legal standpoint. Should the board? I think you're making it too hard. Conditional uses. We are lawyers. I know. it's why you're making it too hard. Conditional uses aren't, I mean, conditional uses are not non-conforming uses. So, you know, the idea that looking at them the same way, or is it abandoned or not abandoned, but even if you did look at it that way, under the non-conforming kind of uses, you have to show an intent to abandon. So I don't think that's an issue here at all, because I don't think that's being shown. The other thing is that if you go back and look at the staff reports, a couple of different times after the conditional use was issued, they came back to the board and asked for expansions, asked for more. Just because you come back in and ask to alter something doesn't mean that you're throwing out the window or waiving a conditional use. And so it really comes down to whether or not, you know, by doing this and trying to make it more clear, trying to get things like null and void conditions that don't exist on the existing conditional use permit, trying to limit the number based on the parking that is not in the existing conditional use permit, is what you want to do here. Or if you want to leave it, there's been no revocation of the conditional use. So it's still out there. Sure. So that's my reason for why do we, if it's still out there, why are we considering a new one? Because it's still out there. Well, if you look at the report, it says that the staff recommends granting an amended conditional use. So I think even though this is a new kind of process application, I think the staff's position is we're amending the existing conditional use permit to now have these different terms in the 70s. So just to make the record clear, the question now is, is this a new application or is it not? Well, one of the reasons we thought that she had to come back is because the original approvals never included any parking for the child care facility along Calder Road, the one that's not Hot Springs. Part of her application now is to include officially and formally for the child care two parking spaces, or at least some parking along Calder Road. So that's why she had to come in here for an amendment to that previously granted conditional use. This is not an application for a new conditional use. It's to amend the previously approved conditional use. Does that clear the muddy waters for you there, Mr. Gross? It clears it for me. I'm not sure about Mr. Glover. Mr. Glover? That explanation helps explain the staff report, I guess. But we've interrupted Mr. Clendenin twice now. Well, I think that sometimes you just have to do that, Mr. Glover. Sure. And I don't mind doing it. Would you like to continue? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Well, we seem to be of the opinion now that this is a valid conditional use because there was no intent established to abandon it. And I just want to make clear for the record, it's been two years and eight months. I don't know that there's been any evidence provided in the record that this property has been for sale. I don't doubt it, but we're just operating under the assumption that it's been for sale. The bottom line is that this conditional use permit that was granted was never complied with. But it's also never been revoked either. Well, I don't know that that makes it invalid, Mr. Chairman. Or valid. Or valid. That's my argument. My argument is that even though it has not been revoked and the zoning ordinance has not been complied with, it doesn't mean that it's still valid. Well, and that was my original question, I think, to legal was, you know, is the clock ticking on an approved conditional use that's granted? And if it's never acted on, does it go on in perpetuity or is there some date or something? I don't know. Unless we bring it back to you and ask you to either impose some different condition, or unless there's a time condition put on it, or unless it's revoked, it's out there. So, and this one had no, this one didn't impose any time, the one that was previously granted in 72 didn't have any limitations like that that we know of. Okay. I would disagree with that interpretation by Ms. Jones, respectfully. If you look at Article 7.6.A.6, it says the Division of Planning shall review annually. And then if the conditions are not complied with, they're supposed to bring this back in front of the Board. And the board is supposed to require the conditional use permit holder to comply with the conditions or face having their permit revoked. That was never done. And there is no may. It's shall. Shall means it's mandatory. There is a time limit on this every year. Isn't that what the staff is doing right now by having seven minutes later, Mr. Gross, come in? There's an annual requirement that this be done until the board can determine that the conditional uses have been permanently satisfied under 76A7, which has not been done. So my argument is that I understand that there is a conditional use permit hanging out there from the 70s, and I understand that it hasn't been revoked. My argument is it's still invalid nevertheless because the conditions haven't been met. There has been no annual review. Therefore, this is invalid despite the fact that their permit has not been revoked. And based on the testimony I've heard here, they cannot meet the original conditions under which they were granted this permit. Without this amendment? Without this amendment, correct. But if we grant the amendment, then they will have met the conditions. But again, if that's the case, we are here on a new application, is my argument. Or a request to amend the original conditional use. Forty-two years later, when the zoning ordinance has not been complied with. We understand. Mr. March, did you have something? I just wanted to point out for the record that the requirement for the annual inspections was not initiated until the mid-1980s. So this was approved long before that and is not on the list of conditional uses that are subject to an annual inspection. So you're saying it's grandfathered in under the same terms that it was issued back in 1972? No, I'm just saying it's grandfathered in to the extent that it doesn't legally require an annual inspection. Now, we go ahead and do inspections on an ad-as-needed basis. For example, if we got a complaint, we would go ahead and do an inspection, and that doesn't change the possibility of you all revoking it at all. It's just that it's not legally required to have an annual inspection. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Sometimes we have a very challenging duty here, Mr. Clinton, to say the least, And obviously some of our cases are a little bit more challenging than others, and I can certainly see, and I think the board is very inquisitive as to what is allowable and what is not allowable. And, of course, we rely on our staff, but we always don't agree with them either. But we always listen to all sides, the applicant and the opposition, our council and so forth. And this is one of those cases that I think that might have a little gray area that may not be as clear cut as some of the other things that come before this board. And so we make our determination on the evidence in front of us, and sometimes that can be a very, very challenging undertaking. I'd like to ask the board if they have any other questions of Mr. Clendenin or Ms. Edmonds or the staff. My non-legal ease here. Just so I understand, so this is valid. We're assuming that this is a valid conditional use. Mr. Jones, this is... What I'm making decisions on. This is a valid... I think so. And that the number of children cared for can be limited to 24 until we give them this amendment. they're just asking at this point that if they choose to have more than 24 children, then we make a decision that that is based on what they change within this parking in the rear. Is that correct? I think right now they can have up to 60. The state allows 48. We're going down to 32. We're going down to 32. This amendment is for 32. Correct, Mr. Marks? Correct. but we haven't heard from Ms. Edmonds yet about her level of agreement with that. Well, she said earlier that she would agree to abide by the conditions, and that would be up to 32 kids. Is there any other questions for Mr. Clendenin and, again, the staff, Mr. Clever? Really not for Mr. Clendenin, but the condition number three is conditioned on future actions, and I hate to do that because what I'd prefer the board do is to make a decision on the current application, and if there's a change required in the future, then to consider a change at that time and consider all the facts of the future time. But there's an additional condition on the conditional use that disturbs me. It's a double condition. Are you talking about number three? Number three. The recommendations for approval? So are you saying that right now we just approve it to 24? Yeah, that's what I think we should do because that's what the facts are. And if we approve it and if they change it and get the parking as recommended by the engineer. And Mr. Glover, real quickly, and I think the reason it was written like this and staff can confirm is once we take it the way, giving back is going to be more difficult. So if we say it's 24, it's going to be hard for them to come back and say now it's going to be 32 due to the circumstances of the current zoning and the history of the property. Is that correct? Yes, and I also need to point out that she has already been authorized based on the existing parking that's been there for many years and was accepted. For example, when somebody got the CO in 2010 from building inspection, that based upon all that history and based upon all the years that have gone by and based upon it going from 60 down all the way to 24, we have already authorized that via a zoning compliance permit. So that might help to explain, Mr. Glover, why condition number three was kind of worded that way. But, well, I'm not sure that you can... You can explain it for me, but you can't understand it for me, I guess, is the problem. It's not your explanation, maybe my not understanding it. If she does add the additional parking, then you're saying if she does that, then she can have up to 32, but if she does not, she's limited to 24. That's correct. But then will we know? that's up to her when she decides to I think she's going to do this kind of gradually but that's up to her as to when she wants to make that investment okay that makes sense thank you any other questions? Ms. Weyer? I just recall when we've had child care in neighborhoods that there have been limitations on the hours of operation, and I'm wondering if that would be appropriate here if we choose to approve. If Ms. Edmonds would like to come back up, maybe we could talk about that. Thank you, Mr. Clendenin. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Board would like to hear from Ms. Edmonds. In order to preserve the record, I was wondering if I might be afforded the opportunity to ask Ms. Edmonds two or three questions on the record at some point during this hearing. Mr. Marks? Ms. Jones, is that allowed? We generally don't have... Well, I mean, if it's – well, one thing, if it has to do with whether or not number three is going to be fulfilled, I'd be in favor of that, because I may not know how to ask the question correctly because of my misunderstanding. I don't – But we've never had legal counsel ask the applicant for this, and I think this sets a precedent, and I'd defer to you, Ms. Jones, if that's allowable. Normally we don't do that. We do it in some planning and zoning hearings, but we don't normally do that here. I'll defer to the will of the board on that. Well, yeah, I'd like to follow Mr. Jones' recommendation. Mr. Clendenin, we've never had a legal counsel actually question our applicants, and so I would prefer not to. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Edmonds? Ms. Winers, you want to ask? I asked the question about the time because, as I said, I recall in the past in neighborhoods that we do limit, as I recall, hours of operation. And you've said 6 to 6 initially, and with game days, you would be open until, you know, there's a nebulous time. It depends on when the game is. I would like to take the 24-hour daycare off the table. You would be agreeable to that. Would you be agreeable to not operating a 24-hour daycare at this location? Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Does that need to be a condition? Does that need to be added as a condition? Well, I'm confused because are we saying we're going to limit the hours of operation to be from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.? Is that every day of the week or five days a week? Or are we just saying that there won't be any 24-hour operation at any time? Well, the staff report says days and hours of operation of the child care will be Mondays through Fridays, 6 to 6, with occasional Saturdays. When there's a U.K. football game or basketball game scheduled, children aged 6 weeks to 5-year-olds will be accommodated. So, in my mind, the condition's already addressed. Right. Well, in the report, that's not a condition. Okay. I think we need to be more clear on what we want the condition to be. In other words, do we want the condition to follow what's in the report, and then if that's what it says, then it's not authorizing 24-hour? It really helps a lot for it to be listed specifically as a condition for future enforcement. Can we then add, Ms. Meyer, would that suffice if we added the staff recommendation of 6-6 on Monday through Fridays with the occasional Saturday football game and add that as condition number 7? And no 24-hour. And no 24-hour. Well, would she have to come back for a 24-hour? She'd have to come back for a 24-hour anyway, so I don't think that that would be necessary. And Ms. Meyer, would you want something like on the scheduling of basketball and football games two hours prior to or two hours after the beginning and ending of the game? That would be fine. Ms. Edmonds, would you think two hours would be plenty of time on the sporting activities? two hours before the game, two hours after the game? Would that give? Two hours before the game and two hours after the game. My only question about that is how is that going to be policed? And depending on the time of the game and how the traffic lets out, I mean, I don't think, I mean, we can get down in the weeds on this thing. Actually, it's just something I thought of, and you can try it and work, and if it doesn't work, you just don't do it. I think that limiting the hours 6 to 6 on Monday through Fridays and having to put a time limit on the game, I just think we're really getting down in the minutia. And depending on the time of the game and, again, traffic, what if there's an accident, anything could happen. I agree, though, with the limitations, Mr. Gross, and I agree with adding that as the seventh condition, the 6-6 Monday through Friday and occasional weekends for a UK home football or basketball game. If everybody's all right with that. Okay. Is there any other questions for Ms. Edmonds? I guess I do have a question, Ms. Edmonds, sorry. And it has to do with condition number three. is it your intent to provide extra parking places so that you can accommodate up to 32 children? Yes, it's already pavement. We just need to put the lines. But the last time I came, Ms. Barber and Casey were to go out and look and tell me exactly how to do it. That's the reason why I have not done anything. because when I left the last meeting we had, I was ready to go and do it, but they asked me to wait. So when they show me the layout, then I just do that next weekend. Okay. So it's already paved and everything. We just need to know where to put the lines. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Edmonds. Well, it looks like there is some curb cut. What do we have to do in the front yard? A curb cut for existing parking and Polaroja designed for the current standards. Paid with concrete. Is that a different, another item that needs to be addressed prior to approving this? I know Ms. Edmond's anxious to get this going, but she still needs to get her permit before you go out there doing stuff. That's the reason why I waited until she told me to. Smart move. This is a, if we can lower the lights, Tammy's got that. This is what Casey Cocker with Traffic Engineering drew up. The Hot Springs Court, the three spaces there. Ms. Edmonds might be right. That's pretty close to being able to stripe what's existing there, assuming that pavement is in good condition. But that's true. On Calder, there are some fairly minor modifications that need to be done there. the existing curb cut was too wide. She needs to narrow that back down so there's no confusion about going in and out of there. Two parking spaces here. Remove the asphalt here and here and then put that back in the grass. And then in order to provide safe ingress or access into the child care, put stepping stones along here so that somebody getting out of this car here can just go like this and go into the store right here without having to cross over the other parking place. But they're still going to be backing up in order to get out of that? Back up to here because this is all paved over to here. They will back up to here and then pull out this way. Okay. So there's just... Here, this is paved right here. They will back up like this and then pull out that way. That over just so we can see it on the screen? What you just did. Yes. Three parking spaces here. This is paved right here. There's a retaining wall right there. This is paved so they can back up to here and then just go out that way. Pull out forward onto Hot Springs. So where's the sixth parking space going to go? It's not going to be a six. It's a five. It's just five. Thirty-two. Okay. Does that answer your question, Mr. Needham? Yes. Okay. I think we've heard quite a bit on this case. And if anybody want to give any of the board members an opportunity to ask a question of the applicant or staff or Mr. Clendenin. And if not, chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 16-31 Denise Edmonds' request for a conditional use permit to reestablish a previously approved child care facility for up to 32 children. Is that the correct verbiage? And a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to zero feet to accommodate parking. Six feet? For the variance, six feet. Okay, to six feet to accommodate parking in a single-family residential R1C zone at 3580 Calder Road and 1228 Hot Springs Court for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the, are we going to add a seventh condition, seven conditions, with the addition of the hours of operation, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday? That is correct, and occasional Saturdays for U.K. football. And occasional Saturdays for U.K. football? U.K. football and basketball, U.K. events. Or UK events. UK events. I think that covers it. Okay. That's my motion. All right. Ms. Miner has made a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. I'm opposed. There's two no's and there's... I'm going to recuse myself because I came in on all this complexity. So I think it may be the best. Well, we also heard this case the last time, too, Mr. Ford. Oh, you weren't here the last time. Well, if you recuse yourself, then we've got four yeses and we've got two noes. And so your appeal for conditional use and variance has been approved. Thank you. Good luck with the project. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'd just like to say, again, you know, sometimes these things are very, very difficult. We're a volunteer body up here. And although we do have a couple legal minds up here, it's something that we, I think sometimes we work around that. We work around the attorneys on the board. But sometimes these things are very, very, very difficult, and we appreciate the patient of the applicant and appreciate Mr. Clendenin and your remarks. I'd like to move ahead. I know that we're going to hear the first Corbin appeal first. I know if I could ask the applicant to please come forward. Mr. Walden, you've already stated your name for the record, and I know that you've withdrawn the variance for the allowable height of the freestanding sign, and so we've got an administrative appeal to transfer 42.5 feet of unused wall signage to freestanding sign, and the staff is passing out some new findings to us, so give us just a second to digest this, if you would. Certainly. And, Mr. Chair, this is the one I'm recusing myself on. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Come back and see us, though, will you? Thank you. Your appeal to transfer 15 square feet of unused wall signage for the expansion of the existing free-standing sign, based on their findings, that it would not adversely impact the subject or surrounding properties, and it will allow the addition of an artistic figure to the existing side with no expansion. It is subject to two conditions, and do you and your client agree to abide by those? We do. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions. Go ahead. Mr. Needham? One of the conditions is that the design, number two condition, is the design shall comply with the drawing and rendering submitted to the board. Is that the one that was included with our package or is some new one? We can put those up for you real quick. I don't recall seeing a rendering. This first one is a scale drawing showing the square footage and the maximum height of 10 feet. And if you look closer, you can see the fork. If you're ready to move on, I can put up the rendering. It's common to transfer. We haven't had a whole lot of signage requests since I've been on the board. To transfer from one to the other, and that seems perfectly fine. It's fairly common, yes. Okay. Well, the problem, of course, with the transfer is you can accumulate and end up with a huge amount of signage, right? I mean, is that what the transfer could result in? You can transfer only the amount that's not been used on site that's permittable. On that particular building? There is a burden on building inspection as they get signed permit requests to keep track of this. Historically, it hasn't been a problem. This is just more of a piece of art. Is that correct? Well, there's a long story behind that. There is a tortured history to this application that long predates it coming to this board. I'll save it to avoid a situation like we had in the last case. This was originally brought forward under the landmark sign provisions of the zoning ordinance, but there is an aspect of that that says that these landmark signs should be unique. And if you've driven down Tate's Creek Road, you may see that Fork Bank has a fork in front of the Tate's Creek location. So there was a disagreement in the body that hears the landmark sign applications. Actually, it resulted in a tie vote twice, a split 3-3 twice, as to whether it qualified under a landmark sign. So we brought it forward as a Board of Adjustment Appeal to try to do it that way. Staff initially recommended disapproval, but I am thankful that we've been able to work through these issues with staff to come up with what we believe is an approvable application, and staff has agreed it's an approvable application. And a landmark sign is to get around the strict requirements of the signage. Is that right? The question, I guess the original question was this was a piece of art. I would say yes. I think some planning staff might disagree with that. Fort, I say, doesn't have anything to do with banking, but it obviously is a pun off of Fort Bank's name. It is a special provision in the signage ordinance to kind of encourage what I would say is a non-traditional sign. It was a tight vote. That's the best I can explain it. To qualify for the transfer, does it have to be attached? This fork actually is physically attached to the existing fork bank sign. It needs to be considered part of the sign. Part of the existing sign. So if it wasn't attached, then the transfer would not be allowed? We couldn't have two freestanding signs. So, yes, it has to be part of the same thing. And for the record, we will have some mechanism to attach it to the fork sign. That's a computer-generated rendering. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles and tech specs, but it will be attached. It will be one structure. Okay, Mr. Wallen. Thank you. All right, Mr. Neum. Anybody else have any other questions? Well, and the total sign is going to be less than 10 feet tall. Is that right? Correct. The fork structure will be exactly 10 feet. Everything else will be smaller. Okay. But it will comply with the 10-foot requirement is what you're saying. Yeah, okay. Just for the record, this is the rendering that shows the fork attached to the existing sign. Yeah, we just took a look at that, Mr. Wollin. and pass that out to us. Any other questions? If not, should I entertain a motion? Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 16-38 First Corbin LLC an administrative appeal to transfer... Oh, no, this has changed. Right? To transfer 15 square feet of unused wall signage for expansion of an existing freestanding sign. based on staff's findings and the conditions that we see. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Has made a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Forrester, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Waller. Thank you all. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving to you. Our next case is an administrative appeal. Dennis Moore, Marcus Emig, Cheryl Tudor, and Buck Busby. I would like to have the applicant come forward and state your name for the record. My name is Marcus Emig. I live on 579 Lamont Drive. Mr. Emig, what I would like to do is I would like to ask Mr. Marks and Ms. Jones to discuss this appeal first. There's quite a bit of background involved, and then we're going to give you an opportunity to present your case. Did you want us to be up together, or did we get him to bridge your time? Well, the one thing that I would ask, and this is something that I've asked in the past, is that whoever wants to speak obviously has an opportunity to speak, but we want to make sure that there's no duplication, there's no replication in what you have to say. So you will have an opportunity to speak as well. I just want to make sure that you're making separate points and not repeating each other. So you'll have an opportunity as well. Okay. Thank you. We're going to need a few minutes to take a look at this, Mr. Marks. Mr. Chair, Ms. Jones has handed me a letter that I'll be passing the other direction, but there's only one copy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, before we start to deliberate, one thing I'd like to discuss on a related topic is when we get these administrative appeals, I think it would be helpful if we had the underlying maybe report from the original hearing so we can recall all the details just in the future. This case I remember because there was opposition, and we did discuss this for a while, but sometimes on these it's hard for us to recall everything in the report. I saw the details in the future furnish the minutes of the previous hearing that was held on September 25th. And I agree with you, Mr. Gross. I appreciate the chronological events that staff has provided, but it doesn't provide any detail of our, because I know at our hearing that we approved an expansion and did not address the building permit, but we'll be hearing about that shortly. While we're reading this letter, a question for staff is, are any of the documents that are applicable to this available to us here electronically? Shaking your head no. What type of documents are you referring to? Sorry. Well, what we approved, I can't recall, along with Mr. Gross or Mr. Stumbo, what we approved in September. Okay. We apologize. I might be able to help with this one. So what your appeal is of, and you do have this in there, is of the zoning compliance permit that allowed for the RVs and the trailers to go on the site for construction. It's not about what you granted for the church expansion. That's not an issue. So where is that permit for us to review? You should have access to that. Yes, we're talking about this, Mr. Meyer? Yes, that's exactly it. In other words, the appellants are saying that they think this compliance permit was issued in error, and you're being asked on an appeal whether or not it was. This right here. Okay. just a couple more minutes and I don't think it was a compliance from that system. I'm going to start to try. Thank you. Oh, jeez. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all for your patience. I'd like to ask Mr. March to come up. I think for starters, we'll just get the chronology events straight, just kind of on a factual basis as a solid footing to go from. A church expansion at 516 Pasadena Drive was approved by the Board of Adjustment on September 25, 2015 for St. John's Lutheran Church, case number C, 2015-51. Apologize for the minutes issue, but we didn't consider it at all relevant because the issue of housing construction workers on site during construction in RVs and trailers just wasn't part of that case at all in any way, shape, or form. So we didn't consider that level of detail for that prior case as relevant at all. So we do have the case file here. If something does come up later that is relevant, we can try to dig that out of the case file. So that was the fall of 2015. In spring of 2016, the church approached a vision of planning as they were starting to get their permitting efforts initiated and asked that they be allowed to place the RVs and trailers on site for the purpose of housing construction workers. This was a highly unusual request that planning had never received before, so it got a fair amount of scrutiny. As part of the deliberation of that request, we did learn that the actual construction workers were part of an organization known as Laborers for Christ, and they volunteer their time and services as they go around the country to build churches for the St. John's Lutheran Church. organization. Ultimately, that request to house construction workers on site in the RVs and trailers was approved by the Division of Planning via the issuance of a zoning compliance permit on April 5, 2016. A building permit was subsequently issued for the church construction by the Division of Building Inspection on May 23, 2016. The RVs and trailers started to get placed on site in early August, and it was shortly after that that planning started to get complaints from some of the area residents about the RVs and trailers housing construction workers on site. A site inspection on September 14, 2016 did confirm that eight RVs and trailers were in place at that time, five along the western property line and three along the southern property line. And I think here, if we can lighten that up a little bit, as an aerial view of the property, just to get you oriented. Actually shows up a little better this way. Here's the church property. Pasadena Drive, Lamont Drive. The western property line, right along here, That's the area where the five RVs or trailers were set up. This is the southern property line here where three were set up. So that kind of orients you to that. There was an interim time of trying to explain to the neighbors what had happened. They were very persistent in wanting to get something in writing, understandably, about what was going on. So we did provide a written notice. on September 16, 2016, indicating that the Division of Planning would not be pursuing any enforcement action regarding the RVs and trailers based upon the prior issuance of the zoning compliance permit. The appellants filed a notice of appeal of that decision to the Division of Planning on October 14, 2016, and that appeal was filed jointly by four area residents, all of which reside on Lamont Drive, which has backyards which directly abut the church property here. So all four of the appellants, which is actually represented by three households, live along here. So that's the kind of chronological survey of just the facts. I believe that Tracy Jones with the law department wants to kind of give you all an overview of issues from their perspective. The law department got involved in this as complaints were coming in from the neighborhood. And my understanding is that, and those weren't voiced directly to me, but as we discussed this, is that the complaints were not so much about things like noise, lighting, trash, those kinds of things, but just more the fact that there were this number of RVs that people were living in being located on the property. So at this point in time when we got involved, there was a zoning compliance permit issued for this to occur. And so we started looking at it, and I will tell you, if you look in the zoning ordinance, this is a R1B, R1C zone, and this is where this is going to be a difficult kind of situation to deal with. So there's really nothing that says you can't do this, but there's nothing that says you can do this. And as you might imagine, this isn't a circumstance that we've encountered with any regularity, if at all, before this time. So we started trying to evaluate it from a number of different ways. and the letter that I passed out to you that was written from Mr. Ellison, who was the attorney acting on behalf of the church, specifically what we looked at that we were most concerned with in looking at this is on page 3. Can we put that up on a copy of page 3 up there? Do you all have the letter? Mr. Forrester, you want to hand that to Mr. Marks? I'm sorry for not having the four copies, but I came straight from court, so I didn't get them all copied. The first couple of pages are more of what Mr. Marks has already described to you in terms of just the chronological history of what happened and some other things that are not related to anything you all would be addressing. But page three specifically, there is a section that is highlighted. It says the presence of RV trailers on the property. And most specifically, the second paragraph there, where they describe how this occurs within their church. When we took a look at that in the law department, we were particularly had some concern about the fact that this was being described as part of their overall church and what they do within their church. It's not a situation where, say, for example, we put out a contract, we hire Messer Construction, and I'm just picking them hypothetically because that's the first one that came to my mind. And they're going to do the construction on our church, and we're going to, by the way, let them live in trailers because it'll be cheaper. As we read this and as we understood from what was related by Mr. Ellison, that's not the situation here. This is actually an affiliated entity which is part of the Lutheran Church, and they are part of the Lutheran Church to do specifically what they're doing on this site. That gave us some pause in light of some of the recent situations we've been dealing with as to what is a church, what's a church's mission, those kinds of things, and where we get into some other kinds of legal ramifications that don't directly impact our zoning ordinance. So at that point in time, it was determined that the zoning compliance permit would not be rescinded. So obviously the letter went out, and this appeal subsequently came about. So that's what you're going to be hearing about today. Certainly there are concerns, obviously, on both sides, but I think you're going to have to make a decision, and I can't point you specifically to a section in the zoning ordinance that says yes or no because it's not there. So that's kind of where we are. Probably not particularly helpful, but that was the process that we went through come to where we are in the decision on this right now. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Marks? Ms. Jones? I have a question. I have a question for Mr. Marks. You said, I think in your presentation, that this was an unusual request, right? That's right. I think it was the first time that anyone had asked that with the Division of Planning, anyway. What were they asking you? They were specifically asking to be allowed to place the RVs and trailers on site for housing construction workers while the church was under construction. And nobody's ever asked you that before? Not with the Division of Planning. Does the Division of Planning believe that it has the authority to issue a compliance permit based on that request? And I'm sounding like a lawyer. I don't mean to. I'm trying to sound like a board member, but it leaks out sometimes. Okay. I wasn't personally involved in the review or the issuance of that zoning compliance permit, but I have talked to the staff that were. I think it was a situation where they deemed it to be a reasonable request. They looked at it from different perspectives, and they wanted it to be accommodating to the church, and so the permit was issued. Tracy's mentioned a couple times about the zoning ordinance, which is problematic. If you take the concerns that Tracy mentioned from a legal perspective relating to how churches are treated in general and what the limitations are, if you kind of for the moment set that aside, you might have to revisit that, of course, later. But if you set that aside for the moment and just focus on what the zoning ordinance says, we get requests not like this but in general we get requests on a weekly basis for uses that aren't addressed in the zoning ordinance and we have to evaluate those the the standard drill is we compare it to uses that are approved clearly in the ordinance or uses that are clearly not approved in the ordinance and we make a judgment about what it's most similar to That's the standard procedure. Based on the circumstances, in this particular case, that level of evaluation was not undertaken. And we can get into the details of what might have happened if we had gone through that level of detail. No, I understand. You all have to make close calls just like we do in the course of your job as well. And without guidance, it's hard. I know you're just doing the best you can. So are we. My second question really has to do with the zoning compliance permit itself, the one that you all issued, and then decided not to rescind. Those were really two separate decisions. But the zoning compliance permit doesn't mention residential trailers or RVs. So it does mention, quote, construction trailers, unquote. And that's probably an unfortunate use of the term. But I can tell you from talking to the staff person that issued the zoning compliance permit that there was a clear understanding with the church representatives that were working on it with that person that it was understood that what was meant by construction trailers included the RVs and trailers that would be used for housing purposes. But I, yeah, okay, and I understand that too. I'm not sure that a person reading this objectively would come to that same understanding. That's why I thought it was important to understand what the intent was from both sides. Sure. Obviously, Mr. Marks, you said that planning hasn't been asked to allow RVs on a site prior to. And having been around construction, I've never experienced where someone could come, and whether it be a church or whether it be a commercial property or anything else, where they would be allowed to basically have a campground, which is in fact what is going on on the site. And following up with Mr. Glover, you're looking at the zoning compliance permit, and it includes construction trailers. Construction trailers generally are not housing, and construction trailers are generally offices. They're not – it doesn't say anything here about housing. And it seemed to me like it was a very broad interpretation of the zoning law to allow this. I mean, we approved the board, you know, approved this conditional use permit and the variances and so forth for the expansion, and we supported that. But we did not approve, you know, having, you know, RV and other, you know, folks staying there, you know, setting up a pavilion to serve lunch and dinner. I mean, this has really turned into a campground, and I think it doesn't really matter whether it's a church or whether it's any other organization that does something like this. And quite frankly, I think our planning office does a great job and a super job, but I think you allowed a lot of latitude and flexibility on allowing the laborers to literally camp out on a property because that's not what this board approved when this came before us prior to. And that's my question, and where I'm a little confused, and following up on Mr. Glover's question, does the planning office have the authority to grant something like that? Because I've never heard of anything like that before, Mr. Marks. And also, Mr. Marks, if this, for example, this was Mr. Schweitzer's property at Turf Lamont. He came in and wanted to do a redevelopment, and we say that's fine. You can get your conditional use or whatever you need. Does that automatically give people the right to put a, ignoring the housing issue, a construction trailer on every site? Or is there something they have to do to get that? Did that come before us, or how does construction trailer approval even work in general? It's fairly customary for a construction trailer that's not occupied as a living place. It's fairly customary to allow that, at least one, on a construction site, mainly as an office. And in some cases, I think there's been one allowed that might have a security person that lives there overnight. But this is a little, this is very, highly unusual. Does anybody have any other questions of Mr. Marks or Ms. Jones? If not, I'd like to go ahead and have you come back up here. Mr. Emig, we'll give you an opportunity. You've already introduced yourself. Thank you. We neighbors had the same opinion. We thought it was highly unusual that suddenly RVs appeared at the back of our property. Can you speak up a little bit, or can we turn the volume up a little bit? Yeah. I'm having a hard time hearing. And especially since we held a hearing here a year ago, and this was not a part at all of any of the hearings, neither here nor the two meetings that we held with the church. It was never mentioned. It never came up. So I think it's an infringement on our privacy. At the back of our properties has a campground been established. We would like to see that gone. I think this permit was granted. I don't know by whom and why, but we neighbors weren't heard. I think it should be amended. It should be rescinded. The other issue we have, if you read this permit, It speaks about six-foot-high hedges that are supposed to be a buffer zone. If you look at the pictures I provided, those are knee-high little shrubs that have been planted there. And I was told by the planning division that there's a city ordinance that gives those shrubs four years to grow into those wonderful hedges that are supposed to be a buffer zone. but if you look at the plans submitted by the church, phase one was supposed to be the church building only, and behind the new sanctuary there was supposed to be a campground. That is what the church told the neighbors why they could not tear down the current building because they said we haven't raised the $5.5 million that it takes to build phase one and phase two. So that is why this whole construction now goes along Southview back to the Lamont properties. So they said we may still need this old building because we don't have the money yet for the daycare center for 70 children. So when they talked about hedges, we thought, okay, if that is going to be built only in a couple of years, perhaps this will grow into something. But when they started construction, they didn't start with phase one. They started with phase two. The daycare center is now, the slab has been poured. It is totally close to our properties. Behind the daycare center will be an outside playground. And now they started to build the bones, the structure for the new sanctuary. So the money is suddenly there. It could not be placed on a different location on the property because it wasn't raised. That was their explanation. But when they started building, they started with phase two instead of phase one. So if we had known that, we would have asked already then to protect our privacy with a privacy fence along the Lamont properties because they will start their daycare center in probably spring of 2018, I assume. And it's licensed for 70 kids. They will have traffic on a daily basis. They will be dropped off. They will be picked up. It will be spring. It's outside. Kids scream, holler, make noise. That's all fine with us. Let me make it clear. We are not against the construction of the church. We are not opposing the daycare center for 70 kids. We don't even oppose the playground right behind our houses. But what we would like to see is that our privacy is protected. We've tried to talk to the church, but all they have in mind is safe costs. They couldn't tear that building down. they placed the construction workers in those trailers behind us so that they saved costs there. They planted knee-high shrubs instead of a privacy fence so that they could save costs there. That is all on the back of the neighbors, and we don't appreciate it. We really don't. I think my neighbor will tell you, I mean, he lives across the street and owns the building next to me. it's leased out, his tenant has already told him, I may not sign a new lease. So we try to talk to the church, but we get nothing, and that is why we are here. We hope that you can help us and rescind this permit for the trailers and also make them build a privacy fence, at least six, preferably eight foot high. And the other issue I really had was that since this permit was granted without any input from us, perhaps you guys need to review how permits are granted because that should not happen. If something really impacts the neighbors in that way, we should be notified and we should be heard because now the burden is on us to come to you and try to get something done that never should have been approved, in my opinion. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr. Emig. Before you leave, does anybody have any questions? Which house is yours, Mr. Emig? It's 579 Lamont Drive. So I've had two trailers. It was actually four trailers along those sides, four-four. One has been now removed from behind my property over to the other side, So now it's 3-5 after we made us think about it. Okay. And for the record, we're only dealing with the trailer issue today. Correct. And that's another point that I wanted to make, that the administrative appeal is for the decision to allow the multiple RVs and trailers for housing. As far as amending building permits and that sort of thing, that's not what we're here for today, and I don't even know if we could even require a fence. But the issue before the appeal is the removal of the RVs and the trailers. That is correct, because that was the only thing in that permit. But if you see how it's written, it refers to, provided the case, that this buffer zone of at minimum of six foot high shrubs is there. Where is it? Okay. So the landscaping is implicated because of the... The landscaping that was implicated to us... was that six foot high hedges are going to be there. And then, I mean, do we have to lawyer up before we come down here and say, what does six foot high hedges mean? I mean, what does a normal person think it means? We come down here and we are told we are getting a buffer zone that protects you. And they plant shrubs that high. Yeah, and like I said, the fact that they built now Phase 2 before Phase 1, so the money is there, the daycare center is going to be starting. I understand that. Have no protection. What I would like to, excuse me, Mr. Henry, for just a second. I do believe that when we approved this originally, we did approve a six-foot buffer, did we not? Yes. Wasn't that part of our? yes and kind of the rub here unless it's specified that the initial planting height has to be six feet there is a provision in the ordinance that allows it to be installed at a much shorter height and it has to grow to that required height within four years within four years right yeah and and like i said if they had stuck to that plan and built phase one and in a couple of years phase two. Perhaps we wouldn't be so upset because, I don't know, that stuff may grow. But they started this phase two. It's going to be there. It's going to open in spring of 2018, and we will have nothing but 70 cars in the morning, 70 cars in the afternoon, kids playing outside in a playground, and we have chain link fence. And I understand that concern, Mr. I think Mr. March clarified that actually, the The shrubs or the six foot is allowed up to four years to get to that height. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Marks? That's right, unless it's specified that the initial planting height has to be certain right from the start. But that wasn't specified in the zoning compliance permit. I don't think it was specified in the original church approval either. It would be helpful for us to see what we approved back in September of 2015. I think the issue with the shrubs is a separate action that needs to be filed with, I guess, the staff and then brought to us maybe next month. I mean, just because we don't have, I mean, I don't know. Right now we're dealing with the trailers. And Tracy, before us is removal of the RVs and does the six-foot strubs come out? Is that coming into play with this appeal? No. The only issue that is before you is the construction trailers and people living in them. Okay. The other issue, I mean, I'm sorry to say, but it may not even be an issue, because if our ordinance says they have four years to grow as a buffer zone, I don't know that we can. It may not be able to. That's not something that we have here to address today. We're talking about the construction trailers. To your point, Mr. Gross. Well, let me just clarify that, Tracy, for a second. if the appeal is the issuance of the zoning compliance permit, and the zoning compliance permit was issued for saying that they were in compliance with construction trailers, provided that landscaping on the southern boundary is installed and maintained throughout construction. Is that parenthetical language what staff is interpreting to be referenced? Or is this a new requirement in the zoning compliance permit? Well, staff may have to correct me on this if I'm mistaken, but I thought that the hedge and the buffering was part of the conditional use permit that was being granted. In other words, it would be put in during construction, but it would be to remain there as part. I might be wrong, but I didn't think it was connected in terms of the RVs. But I don't know because I wasn't involved, so maybe Jim can straighten that up. Well, I do recall the hearing. It was very specific about what phases were happening, when they were going to happen, why they had to happen because of certain funding and other logistical issues on the site itself. But I guess my question is, is that before us today, or is that something they need to bring to the staff's attention and then bring it back to us at a different time, and today we just focus on the trailer? It was my understanding that today was to focus on the trailers. We will gladly bring it back to you if that is what we can do. I have no issue with that. But if you read this permit, it refers to a minimum of six-foot-tall hatches and trees every 40 feet, and that as a condition, and it speaks of a buffer zone, I mean, it's a joke. What kind of condition is that? What buffers us from those trailers, if I may ask? If that has four years to grow, the trailers are gone in a year. It's nothing. That's why I was asking the questions whether the issue under consideration was more than simply the RVs, whether the RVs were part of the zoning compliance permit, what was the authority to issue the zoning permit itself. In other words, the zoning compliance permit basically says that the Church has complied with the requirements of the case that we approved in 2015-51, that case that we heard last year, last September, I guess. And so if we deny the appeal, we are approving the zoning compliance permit, saying that the Division of Planning had the authority. Of course, they're on the front lines, and they have to face this on the ground and such. But if we deny it, then we are denying that they had the authority to issue a zoning compliance permit. And that means that, well, that's my question. What does that mean? Well, and let me back up again. It's my understanding that there was a request about the trailers and that we issued a written opinion that said we're not going to take any action to remove, have the trailers removed. That opinion was what this appeal was issued. The timing ran from that opinion. So that opinion, while it references this case, is sort of the starting point of all these things. In other words, I mean, it's when the opinion was issued about we're not going to take any action to remove the trailers. That's what prompted the time to run to file this appeal. and so if there was some other thing in that opinion then I'm not aware of it but I think we're limited to the trailers today if there's and and so it may be somewhat confusing again this is a situation that we've not dealt with before so I think everyone was trying to reference you know what case it's evolving out of how it came about it's why we wanted to give you the factual history of how this RV situation got on site, but I don't think, but Jim can correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent was to go back and review the entire conditional permit and any of the conditions that were put on that today, but it was to address whether or not saying that it would be in compliance to allow those RVs on that site in the letter that said we're not going to do anything to remove those. Hold on, sir. That's the contact that prompted this appeal. It's certainly what prompted the 30 days to start running. Yeah, it would seem to me that what before us is the, and again, we can get down in the legalese of this, but just looking at this, it's for the appeal of the RVs and trailers, not whether they're compliant with the building permit or with our conditions that we set forth back in September of 2015. So I would like to see if we can't stay focused on that. I mean, that's obviously legal's opinion, and I don't know if anybody has another opinion on that. Ms. Whitman? I agree with what you said, that we need to stay with the trailer issue, RV issue. And I'm kind of like Tom. I don't remember when we discussed this and we talked about construction trailers. Did we talk about a number? Did we talk about workers living in these? No. To me, a construction trailer is like Jim's explained earlier. It might be for an office, but not for maybe a security person or one person, but not for a number of RVs to come in. We didn't talk about this situation. I didn't think so either. I didn't think so either. Yeah, I didn't think so. So to me, the interpretation of a construction, is that what it says, construction trailer, is very different from RVs that are housing workers. And I think we would have had more questions if we had realized that that's what was happening. But to me, construction trailers, is there just for construction and not for housing of laborers? And let me, I don't want to raise any confusion by saying we didn't talk about this, but at the conditional use permit hearing at the BOA that happened whenever it was, when I say we didn't talk about it, we didn't talk about it because that wasn't part of the discussion at that time. The discussion at that time was about the expansion of the church and how that was going to occur and that they needed a conditional use permit to do that expansion, which was granted. this came about separate and apart from that and only to the attention of the division of planning and only and and not because i think the church was trying to hide the ball or anything like that but i just think in the course of them getting their construction plan underway this became a more real possibility and and they did come to planning to the division of planning and say, this is what we want to do, and they were trying to find out or not get permission, but make sure it was okay for them to do that. And so it wasn't something this board heard. And the Division of Planning and trying to make that decision at that time was addressing a situation that we've never addressed before. So my question is, what is under consideration? is the thing that's under consideration whether or not the church is in compliance or is it whether or not the permit was issued properly, the zoning compliance permit? The question for you all is whether or not the zoning compliance permit that was specifically issued that told the church you are allowed to put RVs and trailers on your site for this organization from your church that's going to come and do the building was issued in error or not. Okay. And as I'm reading the agenda on the last page, it says the administrative appeal of the Division of Planning's decision, which is the permit. Right, because when the Division of Planning issued that... That was their decision. They said it was okay to put the trailers there. Right. The trailers went in. Then the neighbors started raising their concerns. then they requested for an opinion in writing from the Division of Planning as to whether or not they were going to do anything about the trailers there. The Division of Planning issued a letter saying we're not going to take any enforcement action or require the trailers to be removed at this time. At that point, when they got that letter, the 30 days started running for that administrative decision. There was no board decision on that, and that's why we're here today. Well, okay, so that means that what they're appealing from is the letter of compliance, but we don't have that letter before us. That was my concern. The written notice. The non-enforcement letter. Yeah, the non-enforcement letter, written notice that was distributed on September 16th, that's what's being appealed, but we don't have that before us. Right, because if you went from the date of this zoning compliance permit, the 30 days would be long gone. Sure. No, I understand. Yeah. So that's why I'm asking what is under review. We don't have the document that's being appealed. Do we have the letter? I mean, I don't have it. We can probably dig it up. I'm not sure. It was an internal memo that was distributed to the council person who was kind of a communication, in the middle of a communication with the neighbors, and she passed that on to some of the area residents. So I can understand. So I understand. So the letter is derivative, basically, but that started the 30 days. And that 30 days is hard for us to determine lots of times. I understand that. We told the council member who was asking and advocating, and she came back and said, can we get this in writing, obviously, for this reason. And so it was generated in writing. But it basically says the decision of the Division of Planning was we're not going to take any action to remove these. Right. then the neighbors knew that wasn't the decision that they wanted, so that's how this came about. Sure. Okay. I understand. Any other questions for Ms. Jones or Ms. Marks? Ms. Jeremy, do you have anything else to add that hasn't been said? I just wanted to say my second concern about our privacy back there, if you say this is not a part of this hearing, can we still submit that to you? Or different? It would go to staff and they would make a determination. And then you could appeal that like you appealed this last determination back to us. Okay. Then we will do that. Thank you. It sounds like we're here for the one issue. And I know this gentleman, one of your neighbors also, do you want to come up and introduce yourself for the record? and do you have anything to add that's not been discussed? My name is Dennis Moore, and I live at 577 Lamont. And I think most everything was covered, but I'm a little bit puzzled. When we came back on the 25th of last year in September, I believe, when we were approved, it was approved, and then we came back, the church comes back in April or sometime, and the planning board, I guess, division of planning, they add to it without a public hearing. And I don't understand, since we were required to come down for the original one, how you can go back and change it without having a public, you know, holding to the public so we could. We wouldn't be here today had we known what was going on back then. Well, I don't think, Mr. Moore, that they changed the conditional use of our decision. I think it has to do with the building permit and what was allowed. is my interpretation. The Division of Planning has the authority to interpret whether or not the actual construction that's going on on site is in compliance. And so that's what they were, I think that's what they were asked to do back in April or May. And that's what's under consideration. So it didn't require, the church wasn't asking for further conditions, It was just asking Division of Planning if they're doing everything right. Okay, then maybe I should be talking to Division of Planning instead of you all. I mean, I'm not sure because I brought some photographs that I want to share with you that I don't know if Division of Planning went out and looked at what they were approving or if they just read some documents and said, hey, this is what we're going to do. Because if you see what's really out there, it's not what you guys would want in your backyard. And we understand that very clearly, Mr. Warren. Am I allowed to show those photographs? We've already seen them. We've seen them all. We distribute it. If you're talking about these photographs. I don't know which ones you're talking about. We have all the photographs that have been taken. I'll look at them. Yeah, sure. And we also have all the photographs that you submitted to us as well. We have a week. Well, we have a very good idea of what the site looks like, Mr. Moore. And, Mr. Moore, I think what the Chair is saying is to the extent that the evidence that you want to bring to our attention isn't related to the trailers, it would go. Mr. Moore, stand back behind arms. But as to whether or not the trailers are allowed to be there, not the whole construction project. I understand that. That would go to Mr. Mark's staff. They would make a determination whether it's compliance with the conditions, and then you could appeal that if they made a decision that you didn't like. The photos that I looked at there, I wouldn't have a problem with. But you haven't seen the photos in my backyard. And that's all I want to show, sir. Do you have them with you? The gentleman over here has them. and if you just want to flip them fast because I can't tell which is which that's just before they did anything I asked them to cut that tree down and they did move on that's my backyard, no problem except the ugly fence move on continue moving continue, that's where the tree stumps are knocking the fence down, has nothing to do with this keep moving, keep moving Keep moving. There's my backyard now. That's what I'm looking at. Go on. Let's move over to the left a little bit. See what's there. Move on. That's just a different shot. Did you move on? I wasn't looking. There's the laundry. Beautiful. Move on. There's a house next to me. They don't really have the problem I have. Now you see this big trailer that's been moved in with that window. Just a little close-up of that window. Just a long review from one you saw earlier, which had the trailer with the laundry in it. That's what I wanted you to see. I mean, I don't want, I can't have people in my backyard. The person, this is a rental property. The person lives there, has two young girls. He won't let them play in the backyard because there's no shield. There's nothing to block us out. And that's really what I wanted to put out to you. That's the reason I'm saying the trailers have got to go, or at least I feel like they do. Okay, Mr. Moore, thank you very much. Thank you. We'd like to hear from the opposition, and would you come up and state your name for the record? Thank you, yes. Matt Ellison, law firm of Fowler Bell, and a member of St. John's. if all this is about a privacy fence, I reject the assertion by Mr. Emig that the church has not been responsive. In fact, Mr. Ertz, project architect, was at a meeting. I don't think that's what he's saying. Excuse me, sir. I think he's talking about the RVs in the back and the pictures that we've shown. We're certainly not up here thinking that the church has done anything deceptive, and I don't want to get personal about this. So I'd like for you to, you know, we're here discussing the administrative appeal of the trailers, and that's what I'd like for you to stick with. Well, I think it was said very early on in this proceeding that the use, you know, the way that this is teed up is the board issued the zoning compliance permit, staff issued the zoning compliance permit back in April based upon the church's rendering of the site plan for design that included as placement on the construction sites RVs and trailers up to eight in number for construction workers that would be there on site. That zoning compliance permit was approved. The church then also received word from the Division of Building and the Division of Water Quality that we would need to undertake site preparations to do so. So the church spent about $40,000 in laying water lines and electrical lines and other requirements to make sure that the sanitary sewer tie-in was permanent and not a temporary tie-in. So we've done that, and then after the RV started coming back on site is when the complaints started to come in, and that's what led to this procedure. I think the key to understanding the appeal is the question, did the Division of Planning err when it issued the zoning compliance permit, and the zoning compliance permit included the request to have RVs and trailers housing up to eight of them on-site housing construction workers? You've heard a law, and you've heard Mr. Marks say many times so far today, that this particular type of use is neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited based on this type of situation. And so you have to look at if it's a coin flip and the staff is not exactly sure how to proceed which direction, was it error to issue that zoning compliance permit? And if you have the legal division and you have the division of planning saying, this is a different request where we haven't been approached by something like this before, there's not a clear-cut answer in order for this board to decide that there was an error in issuing the zoning compliance permit. We've had discussions with the neighbors. If privacy is a concern, we've expressed our willingness to put up a temporary construction fence to a height beyond that on that back southern property line to make sure that privacy concerns are addressed and that if the view out the back is something they don't want to deal with, then we can put that up and leave that there until the construction is completed, which will happen if we're still on schedule for June of 2017. That request was rejected, and it seems that there's other more general complaints that are being brought to this Board's attention today that go back to the issuance of the approval for the modification of the conditional use permit. The procedure, I think it's important to point out to the board as you hit on and as legal counsel hit on, the timeline was such we didn't know about this prospect back in September when we were having the interactive procedure with the neighbors and the presentation before the board. This is akin to a contractor deciding to use certain methods or bring certain construction equipment onto site in order to accomplish the project. This became known to us later on, after the modification of the conditional use permit had already been approved. So we went through the channel that we felt was appropriate, which was the Division of Planning, to say, is this okay or is this not okay? If this is not okay, then let us know and we'll figure out some other alternative. And I don't know at that point what that alternative was. It may have even included not contracting. with these particular folks. I think to grant this appeal goes into micromanaging the details of exactly how the recipient of a conditional use permit or a modification carries out the specific construction project. And again, it goes back to the issue of neither being expressly prohibited nor permitted under the applicable zoning ordinances. And that's the basis that the church proceeded on. There's been absolutely no bait and switch here. I assure the board that is not the case whatsoever. This was a decision by the church how to proceed with its project, seeking the approval of the appropriate entity that was in charge of issuing the zoning compliance permit. And the fact that the zoning ordinance does not command one way or the other on something like this is something that I feel is important because in order for you to determine that the board or the staff has erred, you've got to find the basis for that error. And I just, I have not, we're of the opinion that there was no error in this process whatsoever. Does anybody have any questions? I do. So you're arguing that the permit was not issued in error? Correct. The zoning compliance permit was not issued in error. Okay. Let's assume that it was not issued in error. Are you then arguing that the residential trailers are or are not construction trailers? Well, we submitted the plans with our application for zoning certification permit. Sure. Their description as RVs placed here and RVs placed in the locations that they are now placed on the site. With that, I think you've heard from Mr. Marks, our understanding in making that application was that the term construction trailers that was used in the actual copy, the zoning compliance permit, was inclusive of those recreational vehicles that were included in the site plan. If it's not, then there has been a miscommunication, I would say, one with potentially tens of thousands of dollars worth of consequences to the church if, in fact, it was never the intention of the Division of Planning to issue the type of zoning compliance permit that would permit the placement of RVs and trailers on the property. Are you saying that the church is in compliance with the zoning compliance permit? Yes, I am. Okay. Sorry, go ahead. And that would mean that you're also in compliance with the permissions that were granted last September for this construction? That is correct, yes, because the construction that is proposed, it goes back to what is dealt with when. What happened back in September had to do with the actual building and the use of that building, not the temporary things that would be on the construction site when it came time for the church to execute the plan to get to what was approved by the board. Just a little bit of background from Mr. Ellis. My concern is, I think if it's a close call, isn't that what we're charged by statute to make these determinations if the staff made the right decision? I mean, just because the staff is 50-50 doesn't mean the staff made the right 50-50 decision. That's why you come to us. Is that correct? Well, I'm a little confused by the way you posed your question, but I mean, the reason that it comes to you all is because someone doesn't agree with what the decision the staff made, no matter how they made it. I mean, it's an appeal to you all to determine if that decision was made in error. and the error is whether or not they're in compliance. The permit says they are, and that's what the appeal is. There are two issues. They've got the compliance permit, and the question is, is it said you have a construction trailer? So I think the question is, did the staff have the authority to issue permits, even ignoring it, it just says construction trailer, not residential construction trailer, to allow residential trailers on a construction site? And if that were the question, it would be easy, I think. So that's what we're asking is, you know, what is under consideration? Are we considering whether or not the staff? Yes, I think that's the question, because the question is, when the staff said, we believe that it would be allowable under the compliance permit to put this on the site, And I do think that the staff that was looking at that at the time knew what they were talking about. In other words, the staff was issuing that permit based on the fact that the ROVs were on the site and being occupied. They were asking if they could be on the site. And I think your last question is whether or not, when they said that that was okay, was that decision, I don't necessarily want to say beyond their authority, but was that decision wrong under the provisions of the zoning ordinance? And what we're telling you is that's a hard question to determine. That's why we have this board. That's correct. My question is, do we have the authority to say that a permit was issued in error? Yes, I think you do. All right. What would happen thereafter? Well, I think if you all determine that you believe that it was issued in error, then it's going to be rescinded unless it's appealed. I mean, if you all determine, if you all grant this appeal, you're basically saying that this issue of allowing the trailers or the RVs on the site as being in compliance, we disagree with that. We think that was a decision made in error. Therefore, that compliance permit would no longer be valid. But that would also be an appealable decision to circuit court. One more question. Is it within our authority to put a time limit on the removal of the RVs? Yes. Big, big picture, just so that the board is aware. The construction timeline right now is for completion probably in about June of 2017. What's getting ready to happen is because winter months are coming, most of the gentlemen who are on site will be leaving for the period from December, mid-December, probably through about mid to late March, before they will return to finish the construction push. So for three months out of the upcoming construction timeline, There's essentially going to be one or maybe two of these RVs that remain, both of which will be placed on the western edge of the church property as far away from the Lamont Drive property as could possibly take place. And again, I just want to emphasize to the Board, this is like any construction site. There's going to be disturbances of land, there's going to be building materials everywhere, there's going to be a certain amount of chaos that exists until this project is completed. This particular zoning compliance permit does not request the permanent relocation of recreational vehicles here. That would clearly be against the conditional use permit restrictions that were given to us. This is merely a request that the Church made some time ago as to how to go about accomplishing this construction project, and would the placement of RVs on site be in compliance not only with the September decision of this board, but also with the zoning ordinance of the city as a whole. We were told that the answer was yes. We spent substantial money relocating lines and making sure that those hookups were in place based upon that particular advice. This is a situation we understand is not ideal for the neighbors. To a certain extent, I empathize with them. If a six to eight foot high temporary construction fence placed at the backyard was enough to allay their concerns about privacy, then the church would be glad to do so. We've been told that it's more than that right now. we still remain willing to put that there as an option. That's about what I can offer at this point. So one of the things we can do in this process, I think, is to explore alternatives to either granting or denying the appeal. And then we'd be putting on our mediator hat. I understand that you all have had conversations with the neighbors. And I'm more interested now in what was offered and what those conversations were about, more the substantive issues of what were offered. You mentioned the letter that we got suggested to me that the construction in this area affecting the neighbors would end by the end of the calendar year. Now you're saying June. Sir, the letter said that there would be a substantial reduction in the number of RVs by December of this year. The construction timeline remains the same now as it did in that letter that you have a copy of. Well, here's the overall thinking. Here's my overall thinking. I can't speak for the rest of the board. If I were a neighbor and this were occurring contiguous to my backyard, I would be concerned. And if I had attended the September hearing in 2015, I would have presumed that my concerns would have been taken care of. And so I can see why they're concerned that what's on the ground and what's on the site now is a surprise after they left the September 2015 hearing. And I think that was the basis for them taking the appeal of the no action letter issued 30 days ago or whenever. So my question to you now about what has been discussed between the neighbors, getting into the details of it, is to see if we can avoid making a decision which would require people, as one of the neighbors said, to lawyer up. and to have lawyers make all the money and there be no resolution of this until after things are over. So I'm interested in knowing what the Church has offered to the neighbors to avoid us having to make a decision on this appeal. And if there's a way you all could explore that further or we could explore it with you in order to solve the practical problem that exists on the property or between the properties now. Yes, sir. And in fact, on a meeting on Monday night, the church's representative extended the offer to put on the back property. And this goes back to the issue of the hedges. You know, the thing that I found most compelling about the petition over the appeal was the idea that if the staff wanted to create a buffer zone for the trailers, then simply requiring them to be planted now while allowing them to, you know, years to grow to the height, It probably creates a distance buffer, but not a horizontal buffer, not a vertical buffer. We've extended an offer that was refused by the neighbors on Monday to erect a temporary six-foot-high construction fence with an opacity barrier placed as close to the property line as possible to create the visual screen that it seems like is the biggest issue that both you've referenced having to look at and the reference that comes up from the neighbors as well. We've been, I'm not sure of the exact reason why that was not sufficient, but that was rejected as an offer. Were you given reasons why it was deemed insufficient? I believe that my understanding is that it was a concern over possibly still being able to see over the top of the fence into the construction site generally, and that there were also one or maybe two of the neighbors also were bringing this up more in the context of we want to revisit the conditional use permit to require a higher buffer than what's required in that conditional use permit, which the way that we would envision the solution is to have a six-foot-high construction fence at that back property line continue to allow the horticultural buffer, if you will, to grow to the height required, and then at the completion of construction, that temporary fence removed once the site is restored. You've seen the pictures that we've looked at, Mr. Ellison, have you not? I have, yes, and I have more that I'm not going to bother with. Sure, I understand. I guess my question on the detail would be, would a six-foot fence be sufficient screening to address the concerns of a neighbor for that RV that had the big-picture window in the back? It's a close call, and I'm not able to say 100% right now whether or not a six-foot fence would prevent. I understand the concern. These gentlemen have been all background checked and vetted to the fullest, but six-foot, I don't know. Eight-foot, I think there's probably a pretty good likelihood. I'll be honest, I have not researched the availability of eight-foot-high construction fences. I would imagine that they are out there. And obviously the church would, if it comes to this, and the six foot's not going to take care of that specific concern, which is the privacy concern that I've heard raised, then certainly an eight-foot fence would be something that would be considered and I would say most likely granted or would be putting up. And that's assuming that the neighbors, number one, would agree to that and would draw their appeal. I'm really concerned about having a residential camping ground on a construction site, period. I don't think it's within the zoning. It may not be specifically mentioned in the zoning, but lots of things aren't mentioned in the zoning. That just by first blush, normally, I'm not sure exactly how it occurred at the staff level that this was approved. I'm concerned a little bit that if this had been a commercial contractor versus a religious contractor, I think the decision would be different, which also concerns me. I would be willing to not only uphold the appeal, but to make a very short period to remove the RVs. They are mobile. They could be gone within a week. That's where I'm leaning. I prefer not to see another residential construction. Yeah, and my reason for exploring a mediated settlement is to avoid trying to set a precedent either way on making a decision about whether construction trailers include residential RVs or not, and to save that for another day. So if the neighbor's concerns can be addressed and resolved without the necessity of ruling on this appeal, then I think we've solved two problems. And the first problem is obviously the immediate problem that the neighbors have a concern about. And the second problem is not having to face the question of whether or not a construction trailer includes residential trailers. So my preference would be to resolve the issue today, if we can, all of the neighbors' issues that you all have not agreed on. And number one would be the privacy fence. And if that's only a portion of the privacy issues, then we'd like to hear that as well. So perhaps the next thing, my general question was, what did you offer that the neighbors rejected? Was the fence the only thing that was offered that was rejected? We explained to them, the fence was specifically offered and rejected. We explained to them the timeline, both for construction and for the trailer drawdown to be taking place over the wintertime. and how there may be a few others that come back towards the end of March to the final construction push, but specifically six-foot-high temporary construction fence with an opacity barrier, and that was what was rejected. Ms. Whitman has a comment. After the winter break, how many of the RVs will be returning? Will all eight of them be returning? My understanding is seven, perhaps eight. There are seven on site there right now. So it would certainly not be an increase in the number over what has been there for the past month or two. I'm just thinking that construction goes in phases, and I don't know whether. My thought was perhaps not as many would come back for the finishing of it. And I don't know how they work. But I used to be in the construction business, too. so, but we had certain contractors that did certain things, and they did it in phases, and of course they wouldn't all be there at the same time. So I didn't know whether the way they worked, whether they were all there at the same time. So it sounds like all of them will be back after the winter break. I think it's too speculative, Ms. Whitman, for me to tell you one way or another, other than it will not exceed the number that are there presently. Does anybody have any more questions for Mr. Ellis? If you would have a seat and you can come back up. We had a meeting on Monday, that is correct. Finally, finally. And all they came up with was we are willing to put a temporary fence up there. We showed so much. I don't know what I can say. We were really patient. We were willing to talk to them. We made suggestions. if they have $40,000 for putting in electricity and sewer cables for those RVs, but they don't have $4,000 to put a privacy fence up? I'm sorry. What is this? They can solve this issue by just taking a little bit into consideration how we neighbors feel. We want our privacy. And like I said, what changed, too, is the building process. They started with phase two. There is no time for those hedges to grow until, now they said 2017, June, the project is finished and the daycare is going to start. We were told that the trailers are going to come back from May to June. Eight trailers are going to be back. So all we said to them, why don't you build a privacy fence? I built a privacy fence along to my neighbor's property. It cost me $1,100 for 75 feet. Those are four properties that's about 200 feet. Why don't they do it? Why don't they give a little something back, a little bit respect? Well, Mr. Emmig, the gentleman did say that they would be amenable to putting up a six-foot privacy fence. No, that's not what he said. It's a temporary fence. A construction fence. So this is what they, a construction fence, a temporary construction fence. That is how I understood it. If they are willing to put up an 8-foot fence, because those trailers are about 12 feet high, you can still, I mean, but that is not reasonable. We were reasonable. That's what I put up here. Six to 8-foot, preferably 8-foot privacy fence along back there that is on four properties. You're talking about a permanent privacy fence, not a construction privacy fence. Yes, correct. Because of the traffic that is going to start with the other issue, because we wouldn't have to come back and appeal that here again and talk about it again if we could solve it this way. And that's what we're interested in doing. Let me ask you, Mr. Emig, if there were any other issues besides the type of privacy fence. Is privacy the main issue? I understand privacy is the main issue. Yes. Are there any other issues besides privacy that the neighbors have regarding the church's construction in fulfillment of its conditional use permit? I mean, if you look at the plan, may I just... And that was a fairly open-ended question. I wanted to limit that question to the issuance of the zoning plan. No, like I said, we are not opposed to the church being constructed. We are not opposed to the daycare center. We are not opposed to the playground back there. I understand. And we just want to have our privacy, and if they give it to us, we can solve both issues here today. If the Church agreed to put up a permanent eight-foot privacy fence along you and your neighbor's property, would that satisfy you? That would satisfy us, and we would compromise with them. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'd just like to make a comment on that, and I appreciate them willing to do that. And I know I'm trying to find some mediation to this, and I appreciate the comments and questions, Mr. Glover, that you've been asking. But I will tell you from my standpoint, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow residential housing, basically RVs and trailers, on a construction site. It's not happened in the past. I think that if we allow, if we don't remove or ask that these, and again, I'm not sliding the church. I don't think that there was any intent to circumvent any permit. And obviously the planning staff agreed to allow that. but the interpretation of construction trailers to extend that to residential RVs and particularly basically what is a campground in the back of a residential neighborhood to allow the workers to build a church. That's my biggest problem. I think that if we deny this appeal to not to remove these, I think that we set ourselves up for some very dangerous ground to be on, because I know it's not been asked before, and I know that the law doesn't say we can do it, or the ordinance doesn't say that we can do it one way or the other, but that's what we're here to interpret. And to allow, again, RVs and trailers to sit on a construction project, I think, Mr. Marks, the next time somebody comes to us that wants to build a subdivision or build a commercial piece of property, if we allow it here, we're going to allow it in the future. And I do think that they're – I don't want to say they didn't have the authority to do it, but did they somehow err in allowing a temporary or residential housing on a construction project? And that's something that I just cannot support. And that's why in listening to Mr. Gross, I'm feeling the same way, because I think if we deny the appeal, I think it could cause very serious problems for this Board of Adjustment in the future. And that's my thoughts. Can I respond very quickly? Sure. And I would just ask in your comments or in your thoughts also, We're balancing the consideration of the different adjacent property owners along with St. John's. The church acted in reliance upon the recommendation or the decision of the church to a significant degree. I understand that, but what I'm saying is that I don't agree with planning for doing that. That's what I'm saying. We approved the church project, and I think it's going to be a wonderful project. And I know that this did not come before us in September of 2015. had it had it been I wouldn't have I wouldn't have supported it and I know that planning was very open in their interpretation I'm just saying that I don't agree with it okay I understand I'm just asking the board as well to balance the considerations both the economic harm that's resulted from if the board decides to well but you're also not it's not not only just an economic situation it's a quality of life it's an adverse effect on the community, on the neighbors and so forth. You know, if this was something in my backyard, it's not something that I would be supporting even if there was a six-foot or eight-foot fence permanently put up. Because, again, we're just trying to interpret what we approved and listening to staff and whether or not they were obviously issued this permit and was their decision. I think it was a very open interpretation of construction trailers, and that's just an interpretation that I don't support. Here's my problem, Mr. Chairman, with where I see you going on this. The problem, I think, is as I understand the law, and I may not understand it well, the staff has the responsibility to interpret these kinds of things. because if they don't, who will? And I'm not sure we can second-guess their substantive determination. I'm concerned that we don't have the authority to second-guess the staff's decision on the ground. I mean, I know they're on the front lines, but I agree with you that I don't think RVs are part of construction trailers. I agree with you there. But my concern is I'm not sure that we have the authority to disapprove a decision that the staff has already made. And, Tracy, am I right or wrong about that? Well, no, I think that you probably do. I mean, this— I can be persuaded otherwise. This circumstance is so unusual. Let me put it in a different context, and this is how I viewed it. For example, several, well, it's probably been years now, I don't even remember, but there was an issue where the former director of planning issued a notice of violation to a certain landowner for operating what was considered a commercial enterprise in an agricultural zone. And that particular landowner disagreed with that notice of violation. This same section of the zoning ordinance that gives you all authority to hear these types of appeals allowed them to appeal to you that decision of the director of planning in issuing the notice of violation. And you could either find that he was in error issuing it or that you could support it. In that particular case, you supported it. I don't think it was as difficult or as complex or as confusing as this. It was pretty straightforward. But, you know, there are, and again, let me say this, and it's not just our ordinance because our ordinance largely mimics the state statute. What is appealable to you all as an appellate body is pretty general in this statute and ordinance. But I do think, because it's there, you all have the ability to hear decisions that are made administratively and determine whether or not you think that they've been issued in error. And then the next level of appeal is to the courts, which obviously, if it can be worked out here, is much better, efficient, faster, and cheaper for everyone. And that's my concern. I remember, for example, the decision that we made in that, and there may be nobody on the board that remembers the Cherokee Park problem that went up on appeal to the Court of Appeals. but we do have in our corporate memory the church on Winchester Road that was an interpretation of living conditions in a homeless shelter, basically, that was called a church. And I'm not sure whether that's been finally resolved, but I think if it has, it's been resolved through mediation. So my particular concern is that if this matter can be resolved by agreement between the church and the neighbors, that solves the neighbors' problems, which is my immediate concern because they have to live with what our decision is. And it puts off a decision about whether or not RVs are or are not construction trailers. and one day we may be faced with that decision in the future and if the case is resolved by agreement, then we don't have to make that decision. And if we don't make the decision, we have a 50% chance of being right. So my first concern is to see if we can satisfy the neighbor's immediate concerns. The neighbor's immediate concerns are privacy. And there seems to be some seed of possible agreement about that. And if we get that agreed to, then we may not have to face the issue of RVs and construction trailers until another day. I agree that if the decision is whether RVs or construction trailers, that's a pretty easy call for me. But if we decide to approve the appeal and the neighbors, in effect, win the appeal, they lose the situation. Because what they lose is the construction of a privacy fence. What they gain is a lawsuit or an appeal of our decision, which won't be resolved before the end of this year. So that's why I'm looking for a negotiated settlement of this issue. And let me be very clear. If the issue can be resolved by the discussion consideration of privacy fence options, the Church is certainly willing to engage in that discussion. I can't stay here and say I have the authority right now to say absolutely eight-foot fence across the board, done deal. We obviously need to look at pricing and gain an approval or two. But perhaps the way to avoid that or the way to go with what you're suggesting is a continuance of the hearing with interaction between the neighbors and the church regarding the existence of fencing along the backside of the property. It will give us an option to figure out what particular heights may be suitable. I think there's an eight-foot limit in the ordinance for backyard fences anyway, and to determine whether or not that is both cost-effective from the church's perspective as well as does it satisfy the problem. And I think given the schedule that we're looking at right now, with no trailers remaining on that back property line here after about three more weeks of construction activity, then the immediate concern about privacy will be gone after that point in time, which will give us an opportunity for when the return happens in March of next year to have a solution in place to address the privacy concern. Because I agree with you, Mr. Glover. If I had to look at that out in my backyard, I would ask questions. I would not necessarily be comfortable with that. Privacy is the one thing that I have heard in terms of the complaints and issues that does strike with me and says that's reasonable, I can understand that, let's discuss a solution that works for everybody as opposed to further litigation. Sure. I'd like to ask the neighbors there a question. If you all could come. Mr. Ewing, could you come back up here for a second? See, all of this was on the table before we came here. Let me ask the question, if you may. Yes. And following Mr. Glover's point and trying to find some kind of mediation, would you be opposed to discussing a permanent eight-foot privacy fence that they would be installing? I think you probably would, but my question is, would you be okay with the RVs coming back after the snow, after spring comes, because they're going to be there all spring and through June? Because to me, that's the biggest issue, I think. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't mediate these sort of things, but my biggest issue, again, I think a privacy fence is a great idea, But, again, I have an issue with setting the president of allowing the privacy issue. I mean, would you support an eight-foot privacy fence? My question is, would you support an eight-foot privacy fence and be okay with the RVs coming back in the spring, knowing that they are there? that is actually what I had already put into Mr. Ernst's ear two weeks ago and said when you come on Monday to the neighbors and talk to us, don't come empty-handed. All they came back with was we put something temporary up for you. That was all they came back with. We had made that suggestion and he said the church looked into it. It's too expensive to build a six-foot fence. It's even more expensive to build an eight-foot fence. That is what we were told on Monday. They only got active after we appealed. That is why we appealed, because they just didn't listen. It's nice to have a lawyer and architect who is part of the faith community. They do that probably pro bono. So it's wonderful. We neighbors would have to lawyer up. That's why we came first here and asked you for help. But we suggested from the beginning, talk to us. I said, you shoot with cannons on sparrows. There is no reason to deal with the neighbors like this church community deals with. It's a faith community, for God's sake. We asked them several times. We made suggestions, and we were pushed back. We got nothing, nothing, nothing. So we had to appeal. And we are willing, I can tell you that. I have a written letter here from my neighbor on the right who isn't here. He said, you have the right for me to speak, you have the right for me to make a decision. And the other two neighbors are here as well. That is what we wanted, and we don't just want something, we give something back. Because the RVs are gone sometime next year. But the privacy issue remains because the child care center is going to be operative in the middle of 2017. Seventy cars coming in, seventy cars going out, drop-off, pick-up. So if they meet us on that point, we are willing to meet them as well. Let me ask you this then, Mr. Emig, and two of Mr. Glover's suggestions. and I think obviously the council and the church would be willing to do this if you all would be. I think that we could all support a continuance to work out some of these details on things that the neighborhood might be willing to compromise and it sounds like a permanent eight-foot fence as provided by the church would be a starting point in that. And obviously, we wouldn't, again, be making a determination of whether or not legally construction trailers are RV trailers, but I will tell you I've got an issue with that. I've got an issue with that, and I think other members of this board do as well. But what I would like to do, Mr. Emig, and if it's amenable to the board, is have you all, to Mr. Glover's comments, is to see if you all can't put your heads together again and come up with some solution that's amenable to both parties and come back here and we can make a determination at that time. Because I think that there's a lot of issues floating around. There's a lot of gray matter. And I think that we could make a much more clear, much more informed decision after if you all would sit down and go back at the bargaining, the negotiation, the mediation table again. And I don't know if my colleagues feel that way. Let me say, too, just because of the holidays, your meeting, if you're going to talk about continuing to your next meeting, will be on December 16th. Would be when? December 16th. December 16th. So it's not, usually it's the last Friday of the month, but that would be very bright in the middle of Christmas. That's when the cats played the Tar Heels in Vegas. I beg your pardon, Mr. Emig. I didn't hear that. I said I won't be here. Mr. Ellis, when will the RVs be leaving for the first phase? They will be leaving roughly between December 12th and 15th. So in about three and a half weeks from now. It's more what work is accomplished that determines that. But right now the construction timetable is for that to happen. Certainly, I mean, most of them have said, I'm not spending Christmas here. But, you know, they're going back to visit family and be with them. So, I mean, I don't think it's going to be beyond that December 12th to 15th time range. And certainly not more than just a few days after that. It would be, to Mr. Gross' comment, they would be out of there before January 1st. Yes, certainly so, Mr. Stumbo. If they were out before January 1st and it would give you all time to discuss the privacy fence and come back at our January meeting, would that... I think they could do it between now and December meeting. Well, I know, but Mr. Emick said that he is not going to be here, and he seems to be their spokesman. So I think that we owe him some courtesy to be here. Well, I think the issue is with the trailers being the drawdown taking place prior to just around the same time as the next hearing, continuing until January, there will not be the present issue, which he's mentioned about the trailers along the back Lamont property drive, that creates the privacy concerns. And I think definitely by at least the January date, we'll be in a position of either we've got something committed and either it's up or it's going to be up imminently or there was no agreement reached. And at that point, the board can contemplate. The way I'm foreseeing this is maybe we have a continuance till January. Hopefully they come to an agreement by then. We could always continue it another month for the fence to get built. So by February 24th meeting, this thing has hopefully been withdrawn completely. If not, then we can make a decision before the trucks come back March 1, and hopefully there won't be any trucks between January 1 and February 24th on the premises, because that would definitely irk me. And just for educational purpose, I join the other members of the board in saying that if we were pushed to make a decision today on the appeal itself without any chance of having a compromise solution that the parties themselves work out, the board would probably be inclined to grant the appeal. And so because of the issue of living quarters being considered as construction trailers. So we would be sympathetic to the neighbors in that regard. Secondly, and therefore, it's in the church's interest, and I think as well as the neighbor's interest, to have a mediated solution. If you all can agree to a solution, that's the better outcome for you all, both parties. Secondly, I've gained a new appreciation not only for the broad-term construction trailer, but also for the issue of what is and what is not screening. When I, and this may just be editorial, but when I understood that we were requiring screening for the purposes of construction, that approving the planting of six-foot trees to screen construction meant that six-foot trees would be planted and they would grow to whatever height they would grow. But during the construction process, there would be six-foot evergreens screening the neighbors from the construction during that process. So I've kind of gained a new understanding today, sort of corollary to the issues that have been presented to us that will make me more knowledgeable and maybe ask more questions the next time we have this kind or similar issue come back before us. Yeah, I would agree. I think we wouldn't have approved. If my memory serves me, I think this is the first one that I was a part of when I was added to the board, that had it been, we knew it was going to be four years before there was some type of fence or barrier or blockage, we wouldn't have probably agreed to having you do that versus a fence. And I remember a fence became, was what we talked about initially, and that was too expensive it seemed like. so the brush would have been planted instead. But I kind of agree that, I don't know, I hope that it can be mediated. I get the feeling that there's still going to be opposition from a price standpoint, it seems like from where the church has been from the beginning. But I don't know. We'll see. We'll have to do our research and figure it out. We're going to be, attorney by trade, that we understand the importance of trying to mediate or negotiate in good faith, and certainly it's our intention to do so. It appears that there may have been some various cross lines of communication, but we'll do our best to resolve those. I think it's in your best intention to try to mediate. Mr. Amiga, would you then be amenable? I think we all seem to agree to continue this to January. We haven't approved our new schedule for the new year, but if we do so, our next meeting in the first of the year would be January 27th. And I think that that would give time. The trailers would be gone. That would give you all time to work out some type of an agreement, if that's amenable with the board and amenable with the parties. And that's assuming the 27th is because you will not be here on the 16th. Because we could easily pass it to next. Right. I think we can work something out before your meeting in January. And you'll be here in January, Mr. Emig? I will. Very good. Is that amenable to everyone? Would somebody then cheerily entertain a motion to continue this to the January 27th meeting? So moved. Mr. Glover moves that it be moved to, that was very quick, I wasn't sure who said that, to the January 27th meeting. And that was made by Mr. Glover and seconded by Mr. Gross. And all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Very good. good luck and I hope that this is going to all be worked out. This is, as we were talking earlier, this is a very unique situation for us up here and we're seeing some things that we haven't seen in the past. And again, I hope that it all can be worked out because I think that there's some very serious precedents set here and I just hope that we can find some kind of a common ground. Thank you. We respect your decision and your guidance as well through this process and we hope to not see you again on January 27th. Thanks so much. Thank you all. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. Actually, the case is over. I beg your pardon? If you're going to be part of the record, you need to stand by and introduce yourself for the record. My name is Todd Ernst. I mentioned to the person I was seated next to that irrespective of how this lands, this has been a great discussion of the democratic process. I mean, I applaud you all for considering both sides and weighing heavy decisions like this. Second of all, the buffer requirement of a six-foot height, not specific to this case, but across the city is going to have repercussions for developers. So I just wanted to note that. Well, thanks very much, and I appreciate that. Mr. Moore, you've got parting comment. Did you want to say something? I just want to thank you all for listening to us today. And besides the privacy concern, I don't want to see this get out into the rest of the city where they bring in trailers and so forth and so on. Because they have brought in a good crew, it appears. You don't know what the next crew at the next site might be. When you're thinking about it, think about what the next crew might be. Thanks very much. In the earlier comments, we don't want to affect anything that has to do with the ordinance, but I think we have some leeway if we want to extend the creative variance to extend the fence from 6 feet to 8 feet or whatever. We'll tackle that on January 27th. Thank you all very much for your time. I do know that we do have a couple of items. We don't have to make any decisions on any action on the Landscape Review Committee, Mr. Marks. We just know that Mr. Cravens. We think you need to accept the reappointment of Mr. Cravens. We just need to make a motion to approve reappointment of Mr. Cravens. Is that a motion by Ms. Myers? Is there a second? Second. Mr. Gross makes second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Chair, while we have a moment dealing with board items, during the CE, which Mr. Pike put on last week, which was very good and we enjoyed it a lot, The issue is raised on the unauthorized practice of law by persons who were representing entities other than themselves personally. And I believe Mr. Duncan was going to raise that with legal and staff maybe. Has that come up? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Well, I would like to go ahead and bring that to the attention of legal, that the issue of whether or not persons in front of us not representing themselves individually need to have a law license. I can tell you a little bit about that, Mr. Gross. The issue came up during my first term on the board, and I, being a member of the profession, was concerned about that as well and raised the issue, and it was discussed and not resolved. And what we agreed to not resolve was whether or not we would require people who were representing people other than themselves to be lawyers. And I think our non-decision was probably a good idea, quite frankly. It doesn't necessarily help the profession, but it helps the public's perception of the profession. And a decision like that wouldn't necessarily educate the public. So what we have done by not making a decision is we allow people to speak for homeowners associations and neighborhood associations and things like that who are members of the group, but not necessarily with a law license. if we were to require everybody who speaks in a representative capacity to be an attorney before they're allowed to speak before us if they're not speaking on their own behalf we would comply with the strict requirements of the rule and the law but I don't think we'd do ourselves any favor and we'd certainly delay the process further every time so maybe that's just my gray hair talking But we have faced that. We do face that, it seems like, every term. I had thought that when David Pike was talking about it, Mr. Gross, that he was talking about corporations, that corporations could not be represented by, if you have, whether it's a 501c3 or whether it's a business entity, that they had to be, it was an actual corporation that had to be represented by an attorney, not the individual. I mean, we can't expect residential neighborhood people. I thought that was the point that he said that that was statute, that if you were a corporation, you had to be represented by legal counsel. And I agree that people can represent themselves. So you may come before us and represent yourself, but you may not come before us and represent your neighbor in their capacity. But I don't think there's any prohibition from somebody who's part of a neighborhood association coming up and speaking, even if they technically be representing the corporation at the time. But the main concern is we get a lot of engineers, architects, and other persons who are clearly not part of a neighborhood association and clearly didn't have a law license practicing before us. Well, and the reason why we have tacitly allowed them to do that is because the engineer or the architect probably know more about the technical issues that are involved with the issues before us and they're the ones that have talked with staff and they're the ones that have talked with who they need to talk to about and they know more of the issues. And the idea of separately educating a lawyer is an additional expense that is probably a good idea when you have an issue before a judicial court, but may not be the most efficient way to do it when you're appearing before the board. It might even be a good idea if you're appearing before the planning commission or the city council or something like that. But we have sort of tacitly agreed, by not requiring people to have lawyers, that we'll hear and listen to engineers and architects and such who are speaking on behalf of their clients. So, your instructor was correct that we probably, to be in strict compliance with the law, we probably do need to have lawyers speak for those who are not speaking on their behalf. but we've allowed it in the, just like we allow hearsay evidence and we allow other things not in strict compliance with the rules of procedure or rules of evidence or even Robert's rules of order. So it seems to have worked so far. So like I say, it may be the gray hair talking, but it seems to work. I guess we may have to disagree on that issue. Yeah, that's right. Very good. Let's move on. Thank you. We've got our meeting and filing schedule. And Ms. Jones, to that effect, if you could follow up on Mr. Gross' request, whether or not there's got to be a, if that's what the rule of law says. I mean, I certainly agree with Mr. Glover, but I certainly understand Mr. Gross. I understand both of your positions. You have before you the meeting and filing schedule. Mr. March, do we do need to make a motion to adopt a schedule? Yes. I do need to point out that it doesn't have to be adopted today. We could wait until December 16th, but there's kind of a new issue. It's not new in general, but it might be something that this suite of board members hasn't addressed. And you sent this preliminary copy out last month, so we've had over a month to review it. So the issue is whether or not you want to switch the meeting date from Friday to another day. I know Friday is an awkward day for lots of different reasons, and it's been a while since that's been discussed, switching it to another day. If you all want to discuss that and try to consider another day. Yeah, if that's under consideration, I'd like to not make the decision today. If switching the date is not on the table, then I'd... Well, it's on the table. There's not a lot of other days that really would work from a practical perspective. Thursdays are really bad because of Planning Commission being in here frequently. Mondays, an outside possibility. Tuesdays, there's a lot of conflicts. So Wednesday might be the best possibility. Based on what we know at this point, we'd have to research it quite a bit because there's other groups that use this, chambers often. But we'd be happy to do that if you want us to explore that issue, and then we could come back next month on the 16th, keep this one on the table, but have an alternative for you to consider. So you might want to talk about that a little bit. The Board of Adjustments has been in place for a long time. Has the Board of Adjustments ever met on a day other than Friday? I assume that they have. Only for special meetings. if that's the case and if we've historically met on Fridays then I see no reason to change it unless there's some significant reason to do that it is inconvenient quite frankly on occasion for us to meet on Fridays especially on long weekends but we do it anyway. Well, in that, I think that Fridays sometimes can be inconvenient. They're inconvenient when you have a five or six hour hearing. They're not as inconvenient when you have a two hour hearing. But I'm just talking from my personal perspective. Wednesdays, actually the last Wednesdays of every month is when I have my board. I could not attend any of the – I would have to miss automatically at least four meetings, and that would preclude me from probably being a member of the board. And the problem that I have is the problem that I have today. I'm the chief bar counsel for the KBA. I serve at the pleasure of the board and the Supreme Court. That's my real job, my regular job. The Board of Governors for the KVA meets today. Every year I have a conflict with this particular date in November. What I've done in the past is alternate meeting here and meeting in Frankfurt with the Board of Governors. It seems to have worked out. So I've kind of compromised that. But I'm willing to work around Fridays as long as we don't go past 6 o'clock. No, that's not serious. I know we sometimes would go to 6 o'clock. I'll tell you, though, there have been times, though, I mean, if we're having an open discussion, there have been times that we've had very long hearings that we knew that we're going to continue for more than 6 o'clock. I know we've had a, I think Vulcan Mining was one of the ones that we actually discontinued on to another date. And so it has happened in the past, Mr. Glover, if we see that things are going to be, because I don't think anybody likes to be here Friday after 6 o'clock. We don't want to put that condition on, do we? But anyway, all points well taken. Just keep in mind that Tuesdays and Thursdays are probably going to be out because of the council work session, council meetings, and the planning commission on most Thursdays. I mean, so if that makes a difference to you. Could we take precedence over planning? Let me just tell you, the council takes precedence over anybody in this room at any time, whether you're scheduled or not. My vote would be for that. To Mr. Glover's suggestion, and our next meeting is December 16th, Mr. Glover, so why don't we think about this and ponder this a little bit and make a decision on the 16th? But it looks like it might continue to be Friday, but let's think about that a little bit and we'll make a call again. It kind of looks like maybe Monday might be shaping up as the – I'll tell you, Mondays are very, very difficult because that's the start of the business week. And, you know, taking a Monday afternoon off is also very challenging. I think that all of our days are gone. Right. Well, you know, it looks like Friday is going to probably be it. But we can't ask the – I know the mayor won't pay overtime, so we can't do it on Saturday. Well, I won't be here in December, but I'll just put in my vote for Friday. Okay. Mr. Stumble, your Wednesday conflicts is just the last Wednesday or all Wednesdays? No, it's just the last Wednesday of every month. I guess that's another option is not to make it the last Wednesday of the month to the third Wednesday of the month. If you want us to play around with that, we can call that one. Well, sure, we can consider that. I have conflicts on Wednesday afternoons, typically. And the other thing is, I know Wednesday nights are church night for a lot of churches, and we consider all requests that churches bring before us. So I would be guessing, and I'm speculating, but I'm guessing that Wednesday afternoons and evenings will be problematic for those churches that appear before us, too. well let's go ahead we'll we'll talk about this some more but it looks like friday might might be the day to continue and and but we'll make that call on december 16th is there any other business to come before the board i want to thank you all for uh that last case especially was uh was very difficult mr glover thank you for your for your mediation uh uh uh ideas and and uh and dialogue and I think that that was a good solution to today. So thank you all very much for your time and effort. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. And same to you. Thank you. And we're adjourned. Is that what you wanted me to say?