# Board of Adjustment - December 16, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 16, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4136 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4136?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-12-16 - **Last revised**: December 16, 2016 - **Length**: 10,355 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on December 16, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Barry Stumbo presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed five agenda items during the session, including variance requests, conditional use permits, and an administrative appeal. All five matters brought before the board were approved, with the board taking a total of eight votes throughout the meeting. No public comments were heard during this session, allowing the board to focus on the business items before them. ## Attendance The meeting on December 16, 2016 had five members present and two members absent. **Present:** • Barry Stumbo • Thomas Glover • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Larry Forester **Absent:** • Joan Whitman • Jan Meyer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on eight items during the December 16, 2016 meeting, with all votes being unanimous except for one abstention. **Postponements** - **PLN-BOA-16-00037**: Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Larry Forester, to postpone Kroger Company's conditional use permit request. Passed unanimously 5-0. [timestamp: 00:00] - **PLN-BOA-16-00051**: Motion by Branden Gross, seconded by Thomas Glover, to postpone Chris Harrison's (Speedwash Car Wash) conditional use permit request. Passed unanimously 5-0. [timestamp: 00:00] **Approvals** - **PLN-BOA-16-00053**: Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Branden Gross, to approve Doug Tackett's variance request to increase setback. Passed unanimously 5-0, subject to four conditions outlined by staff. [timestamp: 00:00] - **PLN-BOA-16-00047**: Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Larry Forester, to approve The Art of Soccer's conditional use permit request. Passed unanimously 5-0, subject to three conditions outlined by staff. [timestamp: 00:00] - **PLN-BOA-16-00050**: Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Thomas Glover, to approve WAGJ, LLC's conditional use permit request. Passed unanimously 5-0, subject to three conditions outlined by staff. [timestamp: 00:00] - **PLN-BOA-16-00052**: Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Branden Gross, to approve Landscape Enhancements/Ryan Johnson's variance request. Passed unanimously 5-0, subject to five conditions with added language in condition #2. [timestamp: 00:00] - **PLN-BOA-16-00049**: Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Larry Forester, to approve Patricia Ehrkamp's administrative appeal. Passed 4-0 with one abstention (Branden Gross), based on two new findings. [timestamp: 00:00] **Administrative Matter** - Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Larry Forester, to adopt the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule. Passed unanimously 5-0. [timestamp: 00:00] All voting members present were Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, and Larry Forester. ## Appointments The council addressed one appointment matter during the December 16, 2016 meeting. • **Barry Stumbo** resigned from the Urban County Board of Adjustment The resignation of Barry Stumbo from the Urban County Board of Adjustment was acknowledged by the council. No additional details were provided regarding the circumstances of the resignation or plans for filling the vacant position. ## Contested Items The December 16, 2016 meeting included one contested item that generated community opposition. **Landscape Enhancements/Ryan Johnson Variance Request** A variance request submitted by Ryan Johnson for landscape enhancements faced opposition from community members. The disagreement centered on concerns about potential disruption to the neighborhood that could result from the proposed project. The opposition was formally documented through a letter submitted to the meeting, expressing residents' concerns about how the landscape enhancement project might negatively impact the surrounding area. The specific nature of the potential disruption and the exact details of Johnson's variance request were not elaborated upon in the available meeting materials. The outcome of this contested item and how the governing body addressed the community opposition was not specified in the provided documentation. ## Landscape Enhancements/Ryan Johnson variance request [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered case PLN-BOA-16-00052, a variance request from Landscape Enhancements and Ryan Johnson to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 7 feet for a building located in a Light Industrial zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Robert Ryan and Ryan Johnson, who presented the variance request to the board. The applicants sought approval to construct or modify a building that would be positioned significantly closer to the front property line than typically permitted under the current zoning regulations. The variance would allow the building to be set back only 7 feet from the front yard boundary, representing a substantial reduction of 13 feet from the standard 20-foot setback requirement established for Light Industrial zoning districts. This type of variance request typically requires demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances that justify the deviation from established setback standards. Following the presentation and any discussion of the merits of the request, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the variance. The approval allows Landscape Enhancements and Ryan Johnson to proceed with their building plans at the reduced setback distance, provided they comply with any conditions that may have been attached to the approval and obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the project. The successful outcome enables the applicants to move forward with their development plans while maintaining a building placement that differs from the standard zoning requirements for the Light Industrial district. ## Doug Tackett variance request [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered case PLN-BOA-16-00053, a variance request submitted by Doug Tackett to increase the maximum allowable setback from 20 feet to 43 feet for a building in a Neighborhood Business zone. Doug Tackett presented his request to the board, seeking permission to exceed the standard setback requirements for his property. The variance would allow a building to be positioned 43 feet from the property line, significantly beyond the typical 20-foot maximum setback allowed in Neighborhood Business zoning districts. Rebecca Burnworth also participated in the discussion of this agenda item, though the specific nature of her involvement was not detailed in the available materials. The variance request represents a substantial deviation from standard zoning requirements, as the proposed 43-foot setback is more than double the normally permitted distance. Such setback variances in commercial zones typically require demonstration of practical difficulties or hardships that would prevent compliance with standard zoning requirements. Following consideration of the request and any supporting documentation or testimony presented, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance. This approval grants Tackett permission to proceed with his building plans using the increased 43-foot setback rather than being constrained by the standard 20-foot limitation. The approval of PLN-BOA-16-00053 allows for the development to move forward with the modified setback requirements, providing flexibility for the property owner while maintaining the board's oversight of zoning compliance in the Neighborhood Business district. ## The Art of Soccer conditional use permit The Board of Adjustment reviewed application PLN-BOA-16-00047, a request for a conditional use permit to operate an indoor recreational facility for soccer training in a Light Industrial zone [timestamp: 00:00]. Cary Tsamas presented the application for The Art of Soccer, seeking approval to establish an indoor soccer training facility in the Light Industrial zoning district. The proposal involved converting existing industrial space for recreational use, which required a conditional use permit under the zoning code. The application requested permission to operate a soccer training facility that would provide indoor recreational services. The Light Industrial zone typically accommodates manufacturing and industrial uses, making the recreational facility use subject to conditional use permit requirements to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The Board of Adjustment approved the conditional use permit for The Art of Soccer indoor recreational facility. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with establishing the soccer training facility in the Light Industrial zone, subject to any conditions that may have been attached to the permit. This approval enables The Art of Soccer to move forward with their plans to provide indoor soccer training services at the proposed location, having satisfied the Board's requirements for operating a recreational facility in an industrial zoning district. ## WAGJ, LLC conditional use permit [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered application PLN-BOA-16-00050, a request by WAGJ, LLC for a conditional use permit to operate a veterinary clinic and small animal hospital in a Neighborhood Business zone. Dick Murphy served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application sought approval to establish veterinary services in an area zoned for neighborhood business use, which required conditional use permit approval under local zoning regulations. The proposed veterinary clinic and small animal hospital would provide medical care and treatment services for pets and other small animals within the community. The Neighborhood Business zoning designation typically allows for commercial uses that serve local residents, though specialized medical facilities like veterinary clinics require additional review through the conditional use permit process. The Board of Adjustment ultimately **approved** the conditional use permit request, allowing WAGJ, LLC to proceed with establishing the veterinary clinic and small animal hospital at the proposed location. This approval enables the business to operate within the regulatory framework established for the Neighborhood Business zone while meeting the specific requirements and conditions associated with veterinary services. The approval of this conditional use permit will bring veterinary services to the neighborhood business district, providing local residents with convenient access to pet medical care and animal health services. ## Patricia Ehrkamp administrative appeal [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered administrative appeal PLN-BOA-16-00049 submitted by Patricia Ehrkamp regarding proposed additions to an existing nonconforming residence. The appeal sought approval to add a first floor rear porch and a second floor living/bedroom area to the property. Jack Stewart served as the key speaker presenting information about the appeal to the board members. The case involved modifications to a residence that did not conform to current zoning requirements, necessitating board review and approval for the proposed additions. The appeal specifically addressed two structural additions: expanding the rear of the property with a ground-level porch and adding living space on the second floor that would include bedroom accommodations. These improvements required administrative appeal approval due to the property's nonconforming status under existing zoning regulations. Following the presentation and board discussion, the administrative appeal was approved, allowing Patricia Ehrkamp to proceed with the planned additions to her nonconforming residence. The approval permits construction of both the first floor rear porch and the second floor living/bedroom area as outlined in the original appeal application. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-16-00037** — postponed (5-0): Postpone Kroger Company's conditional use permit request - **PLN-BOA-16-00051** — postponed (5-0): Postpone Chris Harrison's (Speedwash Car Wash) conditional use permit request - **PLN-BOA-16-00053** — passed (5-0): Approve Doug Tackett's variance request to increase setback - **PLN-BOA-16-00047** — passed (5-0): Approve The Art of Soccer's conditional use permit request - **PLN-BOA-16-00050** — passed (5-0): Approve WAGJ, LLC's conditional use permit request - **PLN-BOA-16-00052** — passed (5-0): Approve Landscape Enhancements/Ryan Johnson's variance request - **PLN-BOA-16-00049** — passed (4-0): Approve Patricia Ehrkamp's administrative appeal - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Adopt the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule --- ## Full transcript For the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'd like to welcome you all here today to the December meeting of the Board of Adjustment. I'd like to ask if first order of business we have the minutes from November 18, 2016 and I'd like to ask the members if they've had an opportunity to look at those if there's any corrections, any additions deletions if not, did Cheryl entertain a motion so moved moved by Mr. Gross, is there a second? a second Mr. Forster, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thanks very much. Could somebody shut the door that leads out to the... Please. I'd like to ask for those of you who are going to speak today, would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You can be seated. I'd also like to ask anybody that has a cell phone, I'm sure no one does, make sure that it's off. And if you do need to take a call, please do so out in the lobby. We'd appreciate that. I'd like to ask right now if there are any postponements or withdrawals. Please come forward. State your name for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the Kroger Company. It's item C1 on page 1 of your docket. We had indicated to the staff and also had sent a letter to all of the property owners required to receive notification about our application. We were going to postpone until the January meeting of the Board of Adjustment. We are retooling the proposal that was initially filed and we'll be coming back with a different proposal then. And we'll also be meeting with the neighbors on January the 3rd to share it with them and also the staff. So we would ask a postponement to the January meeting of the board. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Simpson? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we postpone the Kroger application. Until January. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Forrester, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Hi there, Mr. Chairman. My name is Keith Ransl. I'm here on behalf of my law partner, David Royce, on the Chris Harrison matter. I believe it's matter of 51. Number four, item number four. Yes, sir. Uh-huh. We're asking for a postponement this time until next month. Until January as well? Yes, sir. Does any member of the board have any questions? If not, she'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone the Chris Harrison matter PLN BOA 16-51 to our January meeting. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and announce the rest of the agenda. For those that are disapproval or have opposition, we'll hear those last. I'd like to first ask if a landscape enhancement, Ryan Johnson, is the applicant here? Thank you very much. We'll get to you a little bit later. Kroger's postponed. The Art of Soccer is the applicant for the Art of Soccer here. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to the Art of Soccer? No. You can have a seat right now. I actually skipped over Doug Tackett. Is Doug Tackett here? Thanks very much. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to Doug Tackett? The next is WAGJ, WAG Inc. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to WAG Inc.? All right. We have an administrative review. Patricia Urkamp is the applicant here. All right. Since that's an administrative appeal, we'll hear that last. Is there any opposition to that, by the way? Okay. The first item on the agenda with no opposition is Doug Tackett. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Doug Tackett. Mr. Tackett, the staff has actually recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those four conditions? I do. Does any member of the board have a question for Mr. Tackett? Well, I have a question for staff. I've probably asked this question before and have been instructed about setbacks. and it always confuses me for some reason. So as I understand this application, the existing building is already set back significantly farther than the allowable setback for this kind of property. Is that correct? That's correct. So although his request is to move the building closer to Southland Drive, he's actually asking to increase the setback to move it closer. Now, that's double confusing, I think, to somebody who's not familiar. Am I reading that correctly? Yes, that's correct. Okay. It looked to me like from the map that I got, and I have to say I was on Southland Drive today and didn't specifically look, but there are cross streets, or at least there's one cross street from the northeast side that would be impeded by this construction. Am I reading that correctly? Am I looking at that right? And if not, can we look at the map? Because I want to make sure that we're looking at the same thing. Mr. Glover, I think a lot of these are cross-parking lanes more than streets. And that's really what I'm asking about. I just want to make sure that we know what we're doing when we approve an application like this. Because the application to reconstruct this building will project this building farther out into the parking lot than it is now, which will take over one of the driving lanes in the parking area. I just want to make sure that I'm saying that correctly and that you all agree with me before we vote on it. We have some folks that were intimately involved with the design of this that might be able to answer it better than us. Okay. I can defer to the applicants. Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Burnworth. I'm their architect for this project. We, it is kind of odd applying these brand new rules to the site that was developed so long ago. Basically, if we are disapproved today, we will pull the building to 20 feet from the street. Even closer. Which means both of the lanes would be blocked. Right. So we thought it would be better not to block both lanes that everybody's used to using and just take that back to 43 feet and keep one of those lanes open. Sure. And that's the way I read it as well, that you're going to block one of the lanes but not both of them. Correct. We'd rather not block both, and I think the neighbors would feel the same. Sure. Yeah. That would not be politic, I would think, to block both. Okay. Well, that's just what I wanted to make clear that we understood what was going to happen. And Mr. Sure. Chatham Drive is on the right hand of the schematic we've got on the board. Correct. And, Mr. Glover, we can't see it on this map. It's my understanding that in front of the Good Foods Co-op that the pass-through from Cherry Park through the parking lot has now been closed off. Correct. And you have to now come in through to the Good Foods Co-op closer to the Beauty? Correct. Is that how it's now that the traffic is over there? The South Co-op have two alternate entrances, one that comes in by the new bus stop that's there, and then another one off of Southport. There's an entrance for Good Foods off of Southport, which is farther planned south of the diagram up there. And there's also another entrance off of Southland Drive, just playing south of where we are. But I believe that there used to be two Southport Good Food Co-op entrances. Yes. And they closed the one off that's being affected by this lane closure already. So you can't cut through from Southport to Cherry Bark like you used to just driving through that one lane through the parking lot. There's already been disruption on the north side of this parking lot with the closure of this. Actually, this exact lane has been closed off from the public access to the street. We just can't see it on this diagram. Was that a question? No, I was just stating. No, I agree with you. I just want to make sure that we understand what we're approving, that as a result of the approval of this application, one lane of the parking that exists on, actually as I saw it I think this morning, will go away permanently. Correct. Okay, sure. All right. Thank you. My only question, when I looked at it, I thought the same, that if you didn't get this application approved, it would be closer. Correct. We would block both. The land, and I don't even know if this is included, but the landscaped patio area, I guess that, to me, it would make sense maybe to turn that in. But I guess we'd have to need the parking for any guest spaces. And I guess that's a continuation of what's currently a little grassy median. So it'll continue. So as you enter one side of that grass, you pretty much come down and you can't get out. You have to turn around and then head back out. That was the only way to get the number of parking spaces you needed? Yes, that was key in that. Correct. That looked like the only kind of bottleneck. Everything else looked fine. And the goal there was to create some public space. I know we've all been talking about that on Southland Drive as a goal. And so providing maybe Oktoberfest space in relation to Marika's here was something that we were trying to create. Okay. Any other questions? Hearing none, a chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA-16-53, Doug Tackett's request of a variance to increase the maximum allowable setback from 20 to 43 feet in order to allow reconstruction of a building in a neighborhood business B1 zone at 411, 425, and 435 Southland Drive, based on the following reasons provided by staff and subject to the 1, 2, 3, 4 conditions. Second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Mr. Needham makes a motion seconded by Mr. Gross. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I reluctantly agree. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Then that would make it unanimous. Thank you. Good luck with the project. Thank you. The next item of opposition is the Art of Soccer. Would the applicant please come forward and state your name, sir, for the record? My name is Kerry Samus. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those three conditions? I do. I would like to ask the board if they've got any questions of the applicant. Did we have a soccer last week? Is this the one from last month? Did we postpone this? Because I thought that was in a different place. Mr. Marks? That was a different. 100% different. Yes. Okay. I have a question of staff. Again, I'm sorry I'm not picking on you. But in the third paragraph of the case review, down towards the end of that paragraph, the sentence says, granting the use of the proposed extended hours will prevent the necessity of returning to the board for a change in the use should the preschool program become a reality. Why is that the case? Barb worked on that, and we're going to get her up here to explain that. Good afternoon. If you approve the extended hours, then he won't have to come back later to ask for longer hours to do the preschool. Why? Because it's already in the record that it's been approved that way. Okay. It's stated in there in the staff report that you are approving this based on what he wants to do, and the hours he has stated is like noon to 10 or something like that. If you approve the extended hours for the purpose of him doing the preschool and pre-kindergarten children, then he won't have to come back and get it reapproved. Which he would have to do otherwise. Yes, if you limited it to, say, 4 to 9, which is what he anticipates for the school-age children, 9 to 14-age children, then he would have to come back and get that re-approved or changed to be approved for the preschool kids. All right, thank you, Barbara. Thanks very much. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN VOA 16-47, the Art of Soccer's request for a conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility, soccer training, in a light industrial zone at 2430 Palumbo Drive, for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions on the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Glover. I'll second, Mr. Glover. Mr. Forrester, second. So all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project. Thanks so much. Thank you. The next item is WAG, Inc. Applicant, please come forward. State their name for the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing the applicant and Anderson Communities as well. I just wanted to note, I think the actual name is WAG-J-L-L-C, not WAG-J, Inc. It's not a big difference. but just note that on the record. We'll note that change, Mr. Murphy. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? Yes. Thank you. Any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Murphy? I do. Mr. Glover. Seems to be up to me today, but I do have questions. Sorry. Mr. Murphy, your client's not going to occupy the whole building, as I understand it. Is that right? No, it's just that one suite in the building. There's an insurance company next to it, I think, and a stairway next to it. As I was looking at the application of the maps, it looks like that in a building of 3,000 feet, you all are taking about 2,000 feet. So there will be some left over. I think the building is about more like 20,000 or 30,000 square feet total in the shopping center. We're taking about 2,000 of it. My mistake. One out of about eight or ten businesses there. And you all will be on the first floor? First floor, yes. The staff talks about soundproofing walls in their staff report. Or do I take the omission of any discussion of ceiling soundproofing as being a statement by staff that they're not concerned about that? Or is that a consideration? The ceilings are concrete. The floor between the first floor and the second floor is, I don't know, I'm not in construction, but I think it's poured concrete. I know it's some type of concrete, which gives a great deal of insulation. That's true. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? If not, Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN-BLA-16-00050WAGJLLC requests a conditional use permit to operate a veterinarian clinic, small animal hospital in the neighborhood business, B1 zone at 185 Pasadena Drive, Suite 115, based on the staff recommendations and the three conditions. Second. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Mr. Forster makes a motion. Mr. Glover seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Good luck with the project. I think we're back to the first item on the agenda, landscape enhancements. Would the applicant please step forward and state your name for the record? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Robert Ryan here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Ryan, the staff has recommended disapproval for your variance, and what I'd like to do is I'd like to hear the staff report first and then we'll give you an opportunity to reply. Mr. Marks? Good afternoon. For starters, we're going to get the overhead aerial set up here because I think I can explain things pretty well based on that. I don't know if we can adjust the light at all to get that to come up much clearer. And it's upside down if we can flip it around. This request involves property on Bryant Road. It's a light industrial I-1 zone. Bryant Road is running along here. It makes a sharp turn up this way. This is to the north. This is the Ashley Furniture Store here. Manowar Boulevard is just off this map over this way. Bryant Road dead ends right about in here after this last access point. And this is all part of the Brighton East Trail. that provides a connection over to a large residential area over this way. At some point, Bryant Road is going to be closed, and this will be more of an expanded or expanded use part of the trail over to Manowar Boulevard. I'm not sure exactly how long it will take for that to happen. There will be alternative access arrangements for both the subject property, which is here, as well as this property here, to get back over to Bryant Road. This portion will stay open. This request has all come about as a result of a permitting error that resulted in conjunction with the process that involves both Division of Planning, who looks at the zoning aspects of permit requests, and building inspection that looks at the code requirements of the building permit request. That permit that was issued did not specify a certain setback. In the I-1 zone, there's not a lot of setbacks. There's no rear yard setback or side yard setback, but there is a front yard setback. The front yard is fronting on Bryant Road. The building should have been required to be set back 20 feet. The condition or the sign-off condition that zoning put on the issuance of the permit somehow just didn't get translated properly to building inspection or got inadvertently not looked at when they got it. The bottom line is, as a result, a permit was issued that did not specify the 20-foot setback, and they proceeded to build based on that. I think the building ended up at about seven to eight feet back from that right-of-way along Bryant Road. is the building closer to the road or farther away from the road than that structure just to the right of the building that faces the street or that is the building was placed right in here there's an existing residence right in here is that the building you're talking about? yes, that building I think a portion of it is a little bit closer than that existing residence but the residence doesn't comply with the 20 foot setback either Right. In a situation like this where there's been a staff error, obviously it's challenging for staff to write a staff report that's as fair as possible to all parties involved. We kind of took the approach that we needed to look at it as if the building wasn't there yet to see how the variance justification would play out. So that's what you've seen so far. there really are no special circumstances related to the property that you typically look at for a variance request. Some sort of a physical feature on the lot that forced them to put it where they did, or a configuration of the lot that forced them to fit that size of a building somewhere where it would be functional. None of that, at least based on the information we got, is applicable in this case. So based on the traditional way you look at a variance request, we couldn't support this, and that's why we wrote the staff report up the way we did and had two findings for disapproval. Obviously, you can't ignore the fact that there was an error made and they proceeded in good faith on the building permit that was issued. So our position on that is, you know, we don't have the benefit of hearing everything that comes out of a public hearing. So that particular issue and the details of how you all can address that really needs to be made in the context of all the testimony that you get, which I think we don't have any objectors here. We did have one letter of objection that we need to get passed out if that hasn't been passed out yet. Mr. Marks, if the board went along with the staff recommendation in this case, what could the property owner do? What are their options? Well, the first option, of course, is to move the building back. about 12 feet further away from Bryant Road. Now, we're talking about a very large building. It's like 60 feet by 70 feet. It's a substantial structure, and I'm sure there's some expense involved in that. I don't know if they're prepared to give you some numbers on that or not. They might be. So that's the first option. And, you know, if they think that they've been, if they're not happy with that decision, of course they can appeal to circuit court. But in recognition of all these circumstances, based on the additional testimony that you get today from the applicant or others, if you're inclined and want to take an alternative approach to this, we do have some alternative findings and conditions for you to look at. Before we get there, I'm kind of, without trying to cast blame, how could this happen? Or how did this happen, I guess, is a better question. Well, I can tell there's a lot of different ways that the zoning part of a permit request can get in the loop, so to speak. Someone can specifically ask for a zoning compliance permit, and we'll evaluate it that way and actually issue a document that says zoning compliance permit on the top that has all the conditions specified on it. An applicant can go to a review that's called review board in building inspection where all the different entities involved in looking at an application sit down at the table together on Tuesdays, and they try to hash it out right then. That approach didn't take place in this case. In this case, they asked for a building permit. Before building inspection could issue it, we have to sign off on our new computer system. It's called Acela that's supposed to enhance communication between different divisions and facilitate communication and the overall development process. And that's how we went through the process for this particular case. Now, when that happened, the zoning compliance sign-off specified a 20-foot setback, but like I said before, somewhere in the system that either didn't get received by building inspection or it was received but was inadvertently not applied to the building permit. So we kind of look at this as a joint mistake between planning and building inspection. We both had a part in it just not happening the way it was supposed to. We have since met with them to do some corrective measures that have already been implemented to at least minimize the possibility that this kind of thing can happen again. I'm just kind of curious about how a building and permit could be issued because this is not an unusual circumstance. There's a 20-foot setback that's in the ordinances, and certainly building should know that there's a 20-foot setback, and they should know that they're, I mean, really without even having to ask planning, I would think. Well, it's an interesting question because that's kind of a little bit more of a story of how this played out. One of the things when we reviewed the zoning compliance aspect of this, we did ask the applicant for a site plan that showed where the building was proposed to be located. We didn't get one for several weeks that was on hold. Once the site plan was submitted, it was submitted to building inspection, not to zoning. There was a conversation between the two parties, and apparently that conversation resulted in a determination that the site plan was, quote, okay, no problems. So the building inspection proceeded on that route. And at that same time, that very day, basically, that the zoning compliance sign-off took place with the 20-foot setback requirement. But it just got lost in the translation. What would have happened, Jim, if the applicant had not applied? I mean, how did this application come forward? I mean, it seems to me that they had their building permit, they built their building, and they don't need to be here. at least from arguably. I'm sure that will be a big part of their presentation is that they relied on the permit and proceeded with construction. So did you all say you've got to submit an application to the board? Did you tell an applicant that? Yes, well, the alternative was to move it, of course, but initially, of course, they don't want to do that. It was a tough case. Yes. We've paid our dues on this one. Yeah. Any other questions for Mr. Marks? Mr. Gross. You said that Bryant Road will be closed. You just don't know when. Correct. Correct. This leg right here over to Manowar, this is going to stay. This is eventually going to get closed. And is the city going to construct then a roadway for them to access Bryant Road around the larger commercial building? For these two properties, these are the only two properties that are served by the part of Bryant Road that's getting closed. I don't know the details of the arrangements that are kind of already partially in place. It has to do with easements going from here over to here and from here over to somewhere in here. The applicant might have a little more detail about that. And at that point, would the front of the property now be on the opposite side of where we're discussing today? Well, we actually had some discussions about that, and it's not clear. I think we ended up with the conclusion that it would, since it's still fronting on a public right-of-way, the trail, it's not a road, but it's a trail, that we would still consider the front yard as that portion of the property that faces the trail, not the road. Any other questions for Mr. Marks? Thank you, Mr. Marks. We'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Ryan? Mr. Chairman, this is, in fact, a hard case, as has been observed. We appreciate the brutal honesty of the staff in what they have said, because that's what we understand had happened. As has been advised, there was an error made. My client, in good faith, did all that was requested of him by the appropriate officials, provided the appropriate information and received his issuance of the building permit. The building permit did not contain any condition on it. It did not contain any setback. He had worked with the government officials prior to that and, in fact, had been advised that the building could be set on the line and actually moved it back because they found there was a water line to an adjacent property that ran across that front part of the property and did move it back to an approximate distance, an average distance of seven feet. So my client did everything that they were requested to do, proceeded in good faith, has expended upwards of $90,000 or plus to construct this building, and is advised that if he was required to take it down and move it, the cost would somewhere be around $130,000. So that's not something that he needs to consider lightly, or that's not something that he would like to have happen. You know, it appears that this is a perfect example of an honest error. And if I could approach for a second, the Madison Circuit Court and then our Court of Appeals addressed this issue in regards to the City of Berea case, which some of the members that are attorneys may be familiar with. but if I could hand this out, if I could approach. Please. Thank you. I've had those marked in yellow, and it addresses this exact type of a situation where there's been this honest error that both parties have proceeded in good faith, but the applicant has proceeded based on that in good faith reliance and to his detriment. and the court has said that in that case there is an estoppel against the revocation of the permit. There was a cease and desist order that was given to my client on November 18th. He was within a few days, if not weeks, of completion of the building and ready to occupy, but he did, in response to that, did stop, and here we are today. So, again, I think that this would be the appropriate situation for just this situation. I'm sorry, I didn't hand you one. Would you? I apologize. I apologize. I will pause and let everybody read it, if you like. I was just asking, should we get one to legal counsel as well? I'm sorry, Ms. Forrest? Should we get one to legal as well? Ms. Jones, did you get a copy of this? Thank you. Mr. Ryan, you want to go ahead and continue? I can. Again, we're here asking for the relief that this, for a variance in this situation, we're only asking for, because it's an average, If the building is set back an average of seven feet from the front for 20 feet, it's not going to make any appreciable difference out there. It's not going to affect any safety. It's not going to affect any welfare or public health. I know there was a mention made in the staff report about potential safety concerns with this building. It is situated little, if any, closer to the front part of the existing structure. I will say that there's also a horse fence, black horse fence, that runs along the entire front of this property except where the entrances to the roadways are. So that this building is separated from what will later become the trail by a black horse fence. So we don't see how its location would in any way endanger anyone using by bike or walking on the trail. So we just don't see how that would be a concern as well. But, again, believe that this is an honest error and should be granted the relief requested. Mr. Ryan, would you mind giving us some testimony on the use of the building, what its use will be going forward? Yes, it will be a landscape that's going to be used in the landscape business, which that property is zoned for and was zoned for and recognized in the prior zoning that took place in 2004. and so he's going to use it for those purposes. Do you have any more specifics will be used for heavy equipment, materials? I mean, if you'd like, I could have him step up here and answer your question. I think that would be, yes, I would like that. Mr. Chairman, he didn't stand up, I don't believe, so you mean to swear. Do you agree to tell the truth? I do. Thank you. State your name for the record. Okay. Ryan Johnson, the owner of 1730 Bryant Road. We built that proper. The building actually is constructed for basically just to keep our trucks and mowers and so forth in. And that's basically it. There won't be any mulch, topsoil, things of that nature in there that could be of any problem. And if you actually measure from the corner of the, actually the backside of the building that backs up to the Brighton Trail, and if you go not just from the fence but actually to the blacktop area to the back of the building it's somewhere around 12 feet away actually from the blacktop to the back of the building on one end and 14 on the other. So as far as it, I know Robert Ryan here said that there was a possibility, I know on the docket there was an area that said that there was a possibility it could be disruptive. There shouldn't be, I mean there's really nothing at all that could be disruptive if it had been that far from the trail itself. Mr. Johnson, is that equipment you'll be storing in that building, is that already stored on this property? Yes, sir, it is. Okay. So all you're doing is relocating equipment that you were otherwise storing on the property already into this new building? Yes, that's right. And then I don't want your counsel would clearly probably want to weigh in. Would you be opposed to installing screening between the fence and the building to block the view maybe from the trail walkers? No, not at all. Actually, I've actually purchased some trees. I guess this past Friday we had them delivered to our property, and we've got them healed in as of right now. They're all evergreen trees. The variety would be a green john albavati, and they'll get about 20 feet tall, 20 to 25 feet tall, and 12 to 15 feet wide. The ones that I actually purchased for this project, hoping if that would help out this issue, they're actually right now about 9 to 10 feet tall and approximately 4 to 5 feet wide already. And we've got enough, and we can get more if we'd be required to do so and be more than glad to do so implant those to help block that wall, that backside of the building. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Any other questions for Mr. Johnson? I have a question, I guess, for both of you, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson as well. I just want to say this to put it in the record because I don't agree that it's all the fault of of the city or the urban county government in the issuance of this permit. The ordinances are public documents. They're published. They're available. You can get copies. You can look at them online. Anybody who constructs a building is on notice that those ordinances are there, and Article 8-22 is there for anybody to read. And so the 8-22 is the ordinance that requires a setback of 20 feet, which is appropriate in this property. So I don't want you to think you're getting off scot-free and passing out the blame for this honest mistake that was made, because the applicant is, like any citizen, is on notice that the ordinances are published and available for anybody to read. So that doesn't, I'm not picking on you in particular, but I think there's enough blame to go around that planning and zoning and building shouldn't take all the blame for this mistake. You agree with that, Mr. Ryan? Let me say that he's learned his lesson, and certainly in the next time that he does this, he'll certainly be aware, although he felt like, in all honesty, that he was doing the right thing and did the right thing in this case and just was not aware, as the staff report says, that there was a required setback. Was this a manufactured building? No, it was not. Prefab. Prefab building. Any other questions for Mr. Ryan? I'd like to make a comment, and I do agree with Mr. Glover to a certain extent, but I also know that mistakes obviously can be made, and I think there were certainly mistakes made on the part of our planning office and building inspection. And I'm inclined to, well, first of all, I'm not inclined to have this building torn down and moved back. We're talking about 12 feet. I think that in looking at the location, I think if Mr. Johnson is, to Mr. Gross's question, willing to add more screening to protect the view from the trail and so forth, I really, and I'm not speaking for the board, but I think that if we have some findings to approve this variance, I'd like to see them. Mr. Chair, just in my opinion as well, I would support your comments you just made. Mr. Marks. I would ask you to pose findings for the board's consideration. Well, Mr. Marks, you said before you had some findings. Have you and Mr. Ryan discussed those? Would it be beneficial for us to allow them time to work on those while we hear the administrative case? Ms. Jones? That's fine, but Mr. Marks may need to be in here for the next case, too. Mr. Marks, why don't you go ahead and present your findings? Ryan Wolf. Okay. We tried real hard in these kind of situations to not fluff it up, to make it real, so to speak. And this is, I think, a pretty good attempt at that. There's three findings. The first gets at the idea of the error. Secondly, we talk a little bit about Bryant Road. On the northerly side, there really isn't an established character, row after row of buildings or whatever that meet this 20-foot setback. So that's the idea behind finding B. And we've already talked about, fortunately, a little bit. Finding C talks about we can improve the imposing appearance, so to speak, of this large building by getting some appropriate landscaping in there. Condition number 1 is a pretty standard thing, although I do need to mention that when this property was rezoned about 12 years ago, it did have a development plan associated with it. So on top of everything that they're having to do here, they're going to have to amend their development plan to reflect this new building. Condition number two, that needs your action today. That needs to be reflected on that amended plan. Condition number three is an attempt to address some of the concerns by the residents of the area. The one objection letter you got talked about impacts from noise and stuff going back and forth. So overhead door openings can impact things like how noise is transmitted and just general activity of stuff moving around. So we do have a condition that openings of that type would be limited to the northerly side of the building. Number four is the landscaping requirement. We'll need to adjust this a little bit based on, I think, some of the material they've already gotten with regard to the spacing. so we'll rely on their expertise to tweak that if they need to. And we think it's important to be really clear that the variance is only granted for this particular building, not anything in the future. So that's a summary of the findings and the conditions for your all's review. Mr. Marks, on condition number one, I generally don't like open-ended. You need to do this. I'd like to have some time frame, do this by date. Is there a reasonable time frame from today in which the amended development plan should be? For the development plan, I think fortunately they've already started to get that in the works, so maybe we can get some input from them about the time that they're comfortable with. And Mr. Marks, in conjunction with number two, the second condition, maybe I wasn't listening when you said it particularly, but does the language of that second condition mean that if we approve these findings and conditions, they will still have to go before the Planning Commission? They'll still have to go before the Planning Commission. It's just that there will be a note on the plan that says building location subject to variance as approved by the BOA on this date. And the Board of Adjustment will know in detail what we've talked about here if they do go before the planning or when they go before the planning commission? Well, they can certainly ask for as much of detail as they want, but they'll be aware. Yeah. Okay. So if we approve these conditions, following up on Mr. Glover's comment, do they have to go before the Planning Commission regardless if we approve? Yes, it needs to go to the Planning Commission either way. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Marks? Mr. Ryan, you want to step back up here? and you've had an opportunity to look at the findings and the conditions, and do they mirror yours? They do not, but they are satisfactory and sufficient. We've reviewed them. Again, we just don't want to fight this same battle at the Planning Commission and have to come back here, so that would be the concern. So the findings and the conditions are acceptable to you and your client? Again, somehow with some clarification, We have to go to the Planning Commission, but we don't want to have to come back for you all for a variance. That would not be the case, would it, Mr. Marks? Now, once you went before the Planning Commission, that would be fine. That's fine. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Ryan? I do not. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Well, Mr. Chair, do we still need to have Mr. Johnson look at number four with Mr. Marks? I believe Ms. Marks said he may want some tweaking, or do we pass what we have? And then also, what about the timing of the development plan timeline? They have engaged an engineer to do the proper plans and plats. I don't know where they are in that at this point. We did a preliminary, included that, and forwarded that to the members of the board. But they will move post-haste and try to move this as fast as they possibly can. Would you be comfortable with 12 months? Yes. Oh, yes, it'll be inside that. I mean, they want to go ahead. He wants to try to get this and get this building occupied because he's just weeks away, and that's what he wanted to do. And then he's going to tear down several of those other buildings on the property. So he's ready to go. So are 12 months needed or that can be done in a... We think it can be done in less than that, but if there's a snag, give us the 12, but we'll do it as quick as possible. I think that's agreeable. Very good. Can we add that then to... Should we add that as a sixth condition? I think you can just add within 12 months to condition number two at the end. I beg your pardon, Ms. Jones? I think if you just add within 12 months at the end of condition number two, that will cover what you're saying. At the end of the sentence, so please note that condition at the end of the sentence number two to be completed no later than... I think you can just leave condition number two intact, and then just at the very end where it says subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission within 12 months. I think it will accomplish that. I see. Action by the Board. Shall we note it on a minute? Okay. Approval by the Planning Commission within 12 months. I think that's a good suggestion, counsel. Is that acceptable? Okay. And then on number four. Sorry. Mr. Needham? On number four, I think he had mentioned that the Arborvitae that he had already purchased are between 8 and 12 feet. You know, as another screening, is there any thought put to color to the building? I'm not saying that one color is better than the other, but as another form of green screening per se, It seemed like there was a letter that was in opposition and stated that it was bright white. I'm not sure if that is offensive, but I'm not sure if that can be muted somewhat. Do you want to step up here and respond to that? I tried to follow that. I could barely hear you. Sorry. but change the color of the building from white skin. With the metal sides it's been already screwed onto the building and so forth and the structure itself. Really the only way that I guess we could change the bright white on that building would basically be possibly to paint it. But I think going back to if we were to go in there and plant trees, trees like we had and I can't remember what number it was but we could go in there and do that every 8 to 12 feet as was suggested. By the time those trees grow together you're not going to be able to see hardly any of that building anyways. We'll be more than glad if we need to paint it we can paint the back side of it. Whatever we need to do we'll do. It had been mentioned in the letter in opposition and I just thought maybe that would help in camouflaging this if we do move to approve this. But I don't know. Has that been done before with color, or is it primarily just trees? I'm not in opposition to him painting it if he wants to. I hate to put that kind of obligation on him. And I think the trees, when they reach maturity, probably provide enough screening. There may be reasons for leaving it a bright color on the outside to keep it from being too hot on the inside during the summer. It may have been that the architect or engineer or whoever built that building had that color for a particular reason. I'm familiar enough with construction to know that exterior colors do have an impact on the interior temperature. So I don't think we ought to second-guess that. And I think the trees provide that are in condition ought to have enough of a screening impact on it. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Any other questions? If not, do you want to entertain a motion? Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the appeal PLN VOA 16-52 landscape enhancements slash Brian Johnson request for a variance to reduce the front yard sack back from 20 to 7 feet in order to complete construction of a building in a light industrial zone at 1730 Bryant Road. based on the findings that we've been presented with on this single sheet and subject to the five conditions listed therein. Very good. Mr. Glover, with the addition of the language added to number two, after planning commission, the language within 12 months period. Thank you, Mr. Glover. I made a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Gross, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Good luck with the project. Thanks very much. I believe our last item on the agenda is Administrative Appeal, Patricia Erkamp. I hope I'm enunciating that correctly. Mr. Gross has a conflict and will have to step out for this administrative review. And if you would, please state your name for the record. Jack Stewart, Stewart Architecture, representing Mrs. Ehrenkamp. Ms. Ehrenkamp, as the staff has disapproved of this, we would like to suggest that your review of this could accomplish the moving forward of this as a small addition to the house. It's an upstairs bedroom living area that does not raise the ridgeline, does not increase the footprint of the building. We do have a back porch that we intend to include. But it's a very modest thing to do, and I think a very attractive thing to do and appropriate for the neighborhood. And the notion that it is a B1 zone is a little confounding if you were there to look at this neighborhood. It doesn't really speak of that. And I think what we're doing is an appropriate thing, and the degree of difficulty to go forward otherwise is the degree of difficulty. and would seek your help in letting us move forward with this project. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Can you put the drawings up so we can take a look at them? Thank you, Mr. Stewart. What I'd like to do is I'd like to, since staff has recommended disapproval, I would like to hear from Mr. Marks, Mr. Stewart, and we'll give you an opportunity to come back and state your case. Okay. I didn't bring my pointer, but I probably need that. Okay. This is the subject property. We kind of are in agreement, I think, that the zone is a little bit confounding. This property has been rezoned as a residential area. And then the only other B occupancy is this one right here. and then there's a church here. Aside from that, the entire neighborhood is an R2 zone where these changes would not be an issue at all. This property was actually partially approved about three or four years ago for a zone change to an R2. At least ten years ago. Okay. Before I opened it. Right, by a previous owner who did back out after it was approved, before it got to the big council. We believe that that is the best route to move forward for their project, would be to seek that zone change again since it has historically been approved. The language in the ordinance regarding existing nonconformities is pretty straightforward. I can actually put that up too. Given this language which indicates that the non-conforming use cannot be expanded in either intent of use or physically, we don't really see any way that this could be approved. Let me ask you about the case that was cited in 2001. On Jimmy Allen, the board approved a 500-square-foot enlargement of a relocated nonconforming residence in Light Industrial based on findings that the footprint of the residence would not be enlarged. And isn't that the footprint of this is not going to be enlarged of this residence, is it? Correct. We're adding about 800 square feet of living area, but the building footprint will not be enlarged. That was the major similarity between this case and that one. Another major reason that that one was approved was that the structure was actually being torn down and rebuilt to be the same nonconforming use, but the structure had been previously nonconforming as well. And by moving it, it became a conforming structure, just a nonconforming use. So they did essentially make that a little bit better. in this case we're still a non-conforming use. The non-conformance doesn't change. In this Jimmy Allen case that's cited in the staff report, item B says that there would be a decrease in overall non-conformity because the residents would be more compliant with the setback requirements. But that particular requirement in this particular case to encourage a decrease in nonconformity is not reflected here, and it's not reflected in the zoning ordinance as well, that we encourage decreasing nonconformities. So I'm not sure that the case supports a denial so much as it supports an approval of their application because of the fact that the footprint is not going to be increased. and the footprint is how I'm interpreting the zoning ordinance Article 4-2, the scope and area. The scope certainly is probably not changing. It's a single-family residence that's going to remain a single-family residence. I think Article 4-3A is a little bit more to the point. shall not be enlarged or extended. Well, I mean, we do have to interpret these articles. 4.3a says it can't be enlarged so as to occupy a greater area of land. An area of land, to me, I would interpret as a footprint so that you wouldn't increase the area of land that the building would occupy. Now, it's going to increase in verticality somewhat if they're going to put a second story on it. But as far as the greater area of land, I would agree with the applicant that by keeping this construction within the footprint, they're in compliance with the ordinance and the case that's been cited. So I'm not persuaded that this should be denied, I guess, is my bottom line. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Any other questions? Mr. Stewart? Come on back up. Yes, sir. Well, Mr. Stewart, I kind of tend to agree with Mr. Glover. The way I interpret this ordinance, and I don't see the footprint being enlarged, and I certainly don't think it's going to be out of character with the neighborhood. I don't know how the other members feel, but I'm leaning toward approving this administrative appeal. I wanted to ask if there are findings, either if staff has findings or if you have findings, Mr. Stewart, for approving this appeal. Mr. Marks? We have not developed any yet, but Tracy and I could work on it in autumn. Do you have any findings, Mr. Stewart? I guess personally I lived on Victory Avenue right behind this property for six years in the 80s and know the neighborhood well, and this is a very appropriate thing to be doing to this home. It's a very tasteful thing, a very large investment for the owner, and again, aesthetically, I think we're going to be very appropriate. and, again, an enhancement to the neighborhood. And the idea of it being business just seems so remote that it's not relevant, I think. So I appreciate your thoughts. Okay. Before you leave, I'm kind of curious, either staff or you, Mr. Stewart, is this a nonconforming residence simply because it's in a B1 zone? It's just because it's zoned the way it is, yes. Sure. Okay. And that's what this board exists for, is to give relief from zoning ordinances as I see it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. What we'd like to do is have Mr. Marks and Ms. Jones work on some findings for approval of the appeal. And can we, ten minutes, Mr. Marks, let's take a ten-minute recess. Dean, Board of Adjustment. I think that I appreciate the efforts, Ms. Jones and Ms. Marks, and I think that Mr. Needham has got a motion to make. Mr. Needham? I do. Thank you. I move that we approve. Let's see. I'm sorry. Am I disapproving or what am I doing here? I hope you approve. You would be approving the appeal. I'm sorry? You would be approving their appeal. Approving their appeal, exactly. Okay, I move that we approve PLN-BOA 16-49 Patricia Erkamp's administrative appeal to allow the addition of a first-floor rear porch and second-floor living-slash-bedroom area to an existing nonconforming residence in a neighborhood business B1 zone at 203 Owsley Avenue. based on these new conditions? Two new findings, I'm sorry. Would you like me to read those findings? Pardon me? Would you like me to read those findings? Oh, yes, definitely, please. Okay, great. Finding number one is that the property will continue to be used as a single-family residence with no increase in the number of living units. Condition number two is there will be no increase in the building footprint, and poor traditions have previously been determined to not constitute an expansion of a non-conforming use. I second his motion. Mr. Needham makes a motion to approve the administrative appeal subject to the new findings. Mr. Forster seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Your appeal is granted. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Good luck with it. Good luck with it. Mr. Gross, you can come out of time out. You all have in front of you, first of all, are there any other items that any of the board members would like to bring up? Mr. Chair, I'd like to say, first of all, happy holidays, merry Christmas to all the staff. Thank you for all your good work this year. And as usual and as always, we appreciate you more than we have an opportunity to say during these hearings. So thank you for your work. Secondly, I'd like to propose that the board officially ask that the urban county government pay their heating bill this summer so we won't have to hang meat in this hearing room like it feels like we're having to today. I don't know what the ambient temperature is, but these fans, I'm not sure, are helping us. So that's my two cents worth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very good, Mr. Glover. Thank you. We'll try to have it a little bit warmer next time. You have the meeting filing schedule for 2017. I know we discussed some other times and dates that just did not seem to work out very well. And you have those in front of you. And do we need to make a motion to adopt these? Yes, we adopt the schedule as proposed. Mr. Glover makes a motion to adopt the 2017 schedule. Is there a second? Second. A second by Mr. Forrester. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I want to mention that, Mr. Glover, the next meeting will be January 27, 2017, and I, along with everyone else, wish everybody a very Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday. I have something very personal that I want to share with you today, and this is something that I had sent to the Mayor earlier this week, as well as Mr. Duncan, and I'd like to read it to you today. Dear Mayor Gray, after careful consideration and heartfelt emotion, I submit my resignation to the Board of Adjustment effective December 31, 2016. Serving citizens of Fayette County in this capacity has been one of the greatest highlights of my professional career. For more than a decade, actually it's been about ten and a half years, in the past four years as chair, It's been an honor to preserve our precious land and balance our neighborhoods and commercial interests and advance economic growth. Hopefully I've accomplished these goals of the Board of Adjustment with integrity, fairness, and impartiality. I have the highest respect for my colleagues on the Board of Adjustment and a very dedicated Division of Planning staff who do an outstanding job for our community. even though I'll add we didn't agree with everything today, but most of the time we do. You all do a terrific job, and I wish the board the very best. I want to thank you for allowing me to participate as a member of the board and continued success to you and your administration. I just want to say what an honor it's been to be a part of this. I've always felt 10 and a half years in a volunteer position is generally a little bit longer than I serve. And I know when I first started on the board, the terms were three-year terms. And about midway, they switched to four-year terms. And so I still have another year and a half, and there's some other interests I have as well. And I always think it's good policy to pass the gavel, so to speak, and bring in new leadership and have other people engaged in the process. And it's been, again, one of the highest honors of my professional career to be involved in this board for ten and a half years as a member and, again, the last four years as chair. And I just wish the board the very best and staff the very best. And I wanted to share that with you. And it was a very emotional decision and something I've been thinking a lot about. but I also think it's time to get others involved and engaged, and I hope I've served this body well. So thank you very much. Barry, I just want to say on behalf of everybody in planning and lots of other places in government, it's been a pleasure working with you, and you've done a great job, and we're going to miss you. Thank you very much, Mr. Marks. And before you pass the gavel, Mr. Stumbo, I want to, I guess, echo the sentiments of the staff. I'm surprised I didn't know that you had this planned. I think you've done a good job as chair. We all appreciate you. We certainly relied on your leadership for this board for the past at least four years that I've been on it. I may have been on it longer than that. I can't recall. But thank you so much for your service, and we'll certainly miss you. Thank you, Mr. Glover. And I just thought the timing was good now. I know we're electing our new chair and vice chair and secretary at the next board meeting. And that's one of the reasons I made the announcement today is because I know that we're having new leaders elected and just give an opportunity for that to take place. But it has been a real honor, and I really have appreciated it and, again, wish everybody the very best. Thank you. With that said, if there's no other business, we are adjourned. Merry Christmas.