ლ'ᴗ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ ლ'ლ states, Maple Ridge amended. This is the amended development plan. The purpose of this amendment, as you see here, these two lots are being re-lotted slightly to allow access to this private street at the request of this property owner so they may have a driveway here to this private street and quicker access through these points here down to Childsburg Road. So you can get a good feel for where this is. We just had the discussion on the guest property. Here's Hayes Boulevard as it goes through the guest property. Here's Todd's Road. Here is Childsburg Road. These three tracks right in here, again, here's Childsburg Road, here's the guest property, this is Lockmere. This is the property that you see today. And again, the purpose of this amendment is to re-lot those two adjoining lots to allow new driveway access for the property owner. This plan was presented to the subdivision committee and it was recommended for approval subject to the seven standard conditions that you see on your agenda. I would, as a point of clarification, let you know that in the normal course of review, as you all know it goes to the technical committee, we have an environmental planner who is quite often listed as a sign-off on these plans. He did specifically request not to be on this plan. And that reason being the purpose of the amendment to this plan is strictly to re-lot these two lots and add a driveway access. It's not affecting or addressing any of those other issues that may exist and have been reviewed prior to this amendment. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Martin, I think we have compliance. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. You have a memo that was passed out. It is a compliance statement memo where staff is recommending approval and we agree with the applicant that the plan as submitted does substantially meet the EAMP requirements. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Jason Banks. As Mr. Martin pointed out, all we're simply doing is changing the access point for lot 40 and we're in agreement with the seven conditions and would request approval. Thank you, Mr. Banks. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak to this application? Again, my name is John Tucker and I thank you for the time you get to come and speak out today. I'm not against them changing the driveway, that's fine, but I feel that any point from any plans further from today forward that's in this environmentally sensitive area needs to have an environmental engineer sign off on it. I mean, that's what I'm here to request today. We have proven time and time again with violations of wetlands violations, this particular piece of property dumped stormwater into the area of the guest property, which we've been discussing here over and over and over. I don't care that they want to change the driveway, that's not my concern. My concern is, is these plans are coming through without an environmental engineer's sign off on them. And at what point do we have to stand up as citizens of Lexington like, hey, we're not going to pay for this mistake ten years later? That's my concern today. I mean, I want them to build. I want you to understand, I hope they build everything they want to out there, just don't bring it to me. That's basically where I'm at with it. I've seen concerned citizens here today and we're just trying to make a little bit of a difference because we've got ourselves into a mess, it's going to have to be cleaned up at the taxpayer's expense. All I want is a little bit of review. And it's listed in your stormwater manuals that if there's a sensitive area that it needs to be re-reviewed when it comes to your attention. I mean, that's in your bylaws, your codes. And you're sitting here approving these things, and like I say, an environmental planner is one thing. An environmental engineer that studies hydrology, he can tell you what's wrong with it. And we need to start picking this up and take this forward. And like I said, I'm not against the gentleman building the driveway, but I think that any plan that touches that area or anything to do with Childsburg Road or Hayes Boulevard needs to be reviewed by an environmental engineer at this point. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Does anyone else like to speak to this application? Okay. Any rebuttal, Mr. Martin? Mr. Banks, anything? Okay. At this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing. We have DP 2008-22, Lochmere Estates, located on Lochmere Place. I believe we submitted the affidavit earlier, is that correct? Okay. And the purpose of this amendment is to modify the access point to one lot. There are seven conditions with this. We also would like to note we have the EAMP Compliance Letter that has been submitted, and staff is in agreement that the changes are in compliance. With that, I will turn it over to the Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin, could I ask you, I just have heard you say the environmental engineer asked not to be on this. But again, it's the environmental planner, Mr. Jim Redman, and it's typical when we review all the plans at the Technical Committee, we ask everyone, do you need to be on this plan? And he felt it was unnecessary due to the scope of the... I understand that about the planner. I thought you said environmental engineer, but you said planner. Planner. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. Any questions, comments? Commission? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2008-22 with the seven conditions as noted. Are you acknowledging the EAMP Compliance? Yes. EAMP Compliance Statement. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we have a motion and a second to approve DP-2008-22 with the seven conditions as noted. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Emmons. Mr. Chairman, our next plan, DP 2008-30, Manchester Development, LLC. This is an amended final development plan for a property located at 855 through 941 Manchester Road. I apologize. We're near the top of page nine. It's item J on your agenda, DP 2008-30 for Manchester Development. I've put the development plan, the colored-up development plan on the board to locate everybody. We have Manchester Street running through here and Pine Street as it tees into Manchester Street. This is an amended plan. You have previously approved a plan for this area that incorporates an existing building that's being rehabbed. This is an industrial mixed-use project. Most of this property is currently zoned I-1 for light industrial, but with the approval of a development plan by the Planning Commission, additional uses can go in here. Essentially, the amendment is to add another existing building to the development plan to allow those industrial mixed uses, allow additional uses in this portion. It also has a surface parking lot and then a conceptual building and parking deck that could be built in the future when the Newtown Pike extension comes through. If you'll indulge me, I've got a quick PowerPoint presentation that goes through some of the changes and kind of zooms in on the development plan. So there's the overall development plan. Once again, we've got Manchester Street, Versailles Road, and Pine Street for the subject property. Looking at this, this is essentially the area of the development plan. You can see the large building here that was on the original development plan and then the two-story yellow structure there. This is proposed to be turned into residential, and this has a multitude of uses inside this large warehouse that's being proposed. This building, which is attached, is part of the amendment to this plan to add more property to the industrial mixed use and also include these lands as it works toward essentially Rupp Arena. Most of what we're going to talk about is going to focus in on the area that's being added to the development plan. And to explain the phases that I mentioned during the sounding, Phase 1 is important. It encompasses all of the lands that were on the previously approved plan plus the addition of the building that's attached to the large warehouse plus the first half of the parking. Phases 2 and 3 are in the area that's being added on. The way this plan is set up, the applicant would be able to get building permits and do the developments for Phase 1 and Phase 2, and Phase 3 is simply conceptual, and I'll go through that. And once again, just to kind of show you the aerial, that would be the Phase 1 area. This is zooming in on the development plan. This is the large warehouse building. Between this building and the building that is attached to it, you have about 60,000 square feet under roof. There are different uses out there. There are two new proposed uses, which are nightclubs. Those are conditional uses and would have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. We do have a condition on your agenda that provided the Board of Adjustment approves those uses. They also have an area that's proposed for indoor recreation, retail, an area that could be wholesale or retail use. They also have some interior parking inside the building, which is accessed off of Manchester Street. And then the new building, as it's proposed, is intended to have also wholesale or possibly retail uses. This is the surface parking lot that the applicant could get a building permit for to do along with the Phase 1. And then Phase 2 would allow essentially an extension. You can see how this parking lot was designed so that you can have traffic come in and out of it as a standalone parking lot that would be about 30 spaces. And then they can add about an additional 30 spaces on through here. The Newtown Pike extension, Phase 3, would not be done until the Newtown Pike extension is done. They would have to come back in with an amended development plan. But essentially it has a proposed building and a parking deck that would go over top of this surface parking. So all that we're likely to see in the near future is the surface parking. And so I've got also on the development plan, you can see kind of the dark blob on the colored-up development plan. They are showing the conceptual building so that as we've got Manchester Street and the Newtown Pike extension come through, they are proposing essentially a multi-story building with the parking structure that would go over top of that. They have on the revised plan, they have clarified the site statistics to clearly delineate the differences between Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Phase 3 is conceptual. The new building that you saw, it's probably about another 60,000 square feet. Just looking at some of the Phase 1, it has about 60,000 square feet of existing buildings that are being renovated for the industrial mixed use. Phase 2 only adds about 30 parking spaces. And Phase 3 is all the conceptual building. There was a lot of talk about parking in this area, so I thought I would kind of summarize the parking statistics. In Phase 1, the minimum required parking is anywhere between 127 and 145 units, and that's dependent upon the use. As you know, there's some flexible space that's being proposed right now on this development plan. So if uses go in that require less parking, they would have to do that. Ultimately, they're not going to be able to occupy their uses until they can meet the required parking for that. Phase 1 does show on the development plan 138 spaces, plus the applicant has talked about the possibility of off-site agreements. I'll let them speak to that. Phase 2 doesn't have any additional required parking, but it does add an additional 30 spaces. And then conceptually, once we get to Phase 3, they're showing about 252 minimum required spaces to 270, with 256 being provided under their control, plus off-site agreements. Those off-site agreements would be very important, dependent upon the uses that go in, if those uses overstep the, if they went over the need for the uses that end up finally going in here. That pretty much sums up this development plan. We do feel confident that the conditions that we have, you can see the first nine conditions are sign-offs from different divisions. Conditions 10 through 13 are all simply things that we need to clarify on this development plan. And number 14 is document the off-site parking arrangements as necessary. So if they have uses that don't require as much parking and they don't require the off-site parking arrangements, then that would be a null and void condition. 15 is provided that the Board of Adjustment grants approval. And once again, you can see on that it's or revise the uses accordingly. So if the plans change, either on the applicant's part or if the Board of Adjustment does not approve the conditional uses that are shown on this plan, then they can just revise their plan without coming back to you to go for uses that are allowed in an industrial mixed-use project. And finally, denoting the Manchester Street improvements, that's just a continuation of the improvements that we worked out along through here that would be continuing on up through the rest of the frontage that they are now adding to this development plan. What we worked out here is not so much road widening or anything like that, but there are places where the sidewalk and the road are just basically at grade with each other. And so what we've worked out is a series of planters and things that would give a separation between the pedestrians and the traveling public without having to go through and build a new six-inch curb and raise the entire sidewalk. And that ran into ADA problems and all kinds of things. So we felt that the solution that we came up with on putting in the landscaping also helps to beautify the corridor and make it more pedestrian friendly. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Barry McNeese, the developer, and Clive Pohl with Pohl Resipoe. He's the architect and I believe also part developer, partial owner of this property. And through here, if you have any questions for myself or them, I'm sure that they'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. I do have one quick question. Under the, where it says purpose of the amendment to add existing building to the industrial mixed-use? Yes. Where is that reflected in the plan? I guess maybe I missed that. That's the building that I highlighted in the deep purple. Thank you. It's an existing building. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner. We would like, again, to state that we agree with the 16 conditions and would request approval. Okay. Can we get your name again for the record? Clive Pohl, Pohl Resipoe Architects. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Pohl? Yes. Could you tell me about, it says off-site parking arrangements. Is that across Manchester Street? I will let Barry McNeese address that. He's dealing with that. My name is Barry McNeese. I'm involved in the ownership and development of these properties. Currently, as of today, we've secured two additional off-site locations. One, as shown on the development plan, in the lower right corner of the parcel there on Pond Street, immediately adjacent to the parking lot that we currently own, we have an off-site agreement now for 30 spaces right there. And then we've also purchased another parcel here that we're going to be renovating that will provide another 20 spaces. So they are on the south side of Manchester Street. However, we've also contracted with Arrow Electrical Contracting for solar pedestrian flashers on either side of Manchester Street to help safely escort traffic from the south side to the north side. That's been ordered, and they're expecting installation in four to six weeks. My question is, where do you want people to cross Manchester Street? At the crosswalk where the solar pedestrian flashers are. Right here is where the crosswalk will be, and there'll be a pedestrian flasher right there, and there'll be one right there. And then there's crosswalk striping right there. But everything, as far as crossing the street, it will be at this nexus between the two buildings at the corner of Manchester and Pine Street going north to the buildings. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Petitioner? Mr. Day? When you're doing this development, did anybody ever talk about possibly a stop sign on Manchester at Pine? Or what would it take to get that? We had discussed it early on. Actually, it was something that we had asked for. But given the fact that it's kind of a low-tech device to calm traffic, particularly as we look ahead to the Newtown Pike Extension, which for this section should be complete or is anticipated to be complete by October of 2009, I think the idea of having something that slowed the traffic that's coming off of Newtown Pike Extension was deemed not to be the best traffic flow through there. But in conversations with our local traffic engineering and with the Department of Transportation, this was the best solution that we came up with that seemed to satisfy. I agree for pedestrians. I mean, we talked about this before. I thought we needed some kind of flasher. But, you know, I've been on Pine Street, I guess, backed up six or eight cars at different times of day trying to turn on to Manchester. That whole area down there has kind of changed. And I just, for my own question, wonder if anybody had ever thought about, you know, or if that was going to be possible to put some kind of a stop sign there. Yeah, it was discussed early on, and that conversation kind of evolved to a less restrictive flow for traffic coming down Manchester. Okay, any other questions? I know that I had raised this concern at the subdivision committee meeting, and having been to your facility for an event, nice venue, nice concept, it was a late evening event, dark, right at dusk, and had parked in the easternmost lot of Pine Street. And I'll be honest, I was with three or four others who were in separate cars, but we parked in the same lot and we didn't follow the crosswalk. Shame on me, I guess, for not doing that. But I think what Mr. Day is saying is correct. Jimmy actually, Mr. Emmons, had the aerial. Pine Street is because, I guess, Maxwell goes one way. Pine is a connector that gets folks over to Newtown Pike. And folks have a tendency to turn right. So the concern that I had was coming out of that first parking lot to cross Manchester, it wasn't so much dealing with the cars at Manchester, it was dealing with the cars at Pine, turning right. And, again, it was at dusk. And I don't want to, I'm just saying we need to be cognizant of, you know, what precautionary measures we need to take to protect the public from that. And you just mentioned you purchased another piece of property or parcel to add additional parking to the east of Pine. I'm just concerned what we're doing to address that and handle that. Well, and I think another thing, another important item is the fact that we're also, in addition, with this development plan, we're adding 30-some spaces right here on that side. And then also we have an additional, a considerable amount of spaces over here that will be brought online soon. We're trying as much as possible to find the realistic solutions to huge parking generators. Our goal is to bring and to create a venue on Manchester Street with a distillery district that invites not only vehicular traffic, but pedestrian traffic. But with such uses as the nightclubs, of course, there's tremendous parking generators. But we've, to the greatest extent possible, we hope that the accommodations as far as the crosswalks and the solar pedestrian flashers will at least make a step in the right direction. I will, I mean, it should be pointed out that most of our parking is on the same side of the street as the buildings. More than 50% of it is. Thank you. One of the attachments, if you will, that came out of our conversation in the subdivision committee meeting was that item number 16, denote Manchester Street improvements, would include some improvement of artificial lighting, particularly at that crosswalk. So our plan is to improve illumination there. And I think that that seemed to serve the committee some assurance that what is now deemed to be unsafe would perhaps not be so unsafe. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions, comments, petitioner? Is there anyone in the audience like to speak to this application? Okay. Staff, do you have any rebuttal at this time? Okay. Petitioner, anything additional you'd like to add? I think not. I would like to point out that the hypothetical building is intended to be a landmark amenity to add to the offering that is Lexington's presentation as one enters on the new Town Pike Extension. It's in keeping with everything we're trying to do on Manchester, which is environmentally friendly, pedestrian friendly, and entirely in keeping with the stated objectives of the new Town Pike Extension. So that's an aside. But at this time, I'd like to restate that we agree with the 16 conditions and would request approval. Thank you, Mr. Paul. All right. At this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing, and I'll turn it over to the Commission. As noted, we have 16 conditions. This is for DP-2008-30, Manchester Development, located at 855 through 941 Manchester Street. Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2008-30 with the 16 conditions as noted. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Okay. Next, we have performance bonds and letters of credit. You have on the white memorandum. We'll get a motion at this time for release and call. Who wants to talk for bonds? Yeah. Release and call for bonds. We'll get a motion. All right. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call for the release of bonds at this time, according to that memorandum that we have dated March 13, 2008. We have a motion and a second for a release and call of bonds per the memorandum. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Our next item is commission items, and the first item is BOAR-2007-3. I will at this time turn the meeting over to Ms. Godfrey. I must recuse myself from this application, so at this time I will turn the meeting over to Ms. Godfrey. All right. Ms. Devon has left the chair. Would you like to proceed? Sure. Good afternoon. This is found on page 11 of your agenda. It's item A under commission items, BOAR-2007-3, and it's an appeal by Alan Foster for property at 129 Ransom Avenue. It's in the Aylesford Historic District. We've got the property right here on Ransom. We've got Old Vine Street, East Main Street, and then Ransom Avenue goes from High Street all the way down to Main Street and then on the other side of Main Street it turns into Indiana Avenue, and the Herald Leader is in this area right here. This is a denial of a certificate of appropriateness for an 18-by-18-foot deck that was put on the rear of the house. He was asking that it be allowed to remain as built. The deck was built without a certificate of appropriateness or without a permit. If he would have applied for a certificate of appropriateness, which is required by Article 13, then possibly this situation wouldn't be here. If he would have applied for a building permit from building inspection, that would have triggered the BOAR process. Prior to the construction of the deck, he had gotten a certificate of appropriateness for a garage to be demolished and a new one to be built, so he was aware of the process. When the historic preservation inspector went to the property for a site visit, for the routine site inspection for the garage, the deck was already built, and she told them that she couldn't issue a stop work order because the deck was already built, but she did tell them they needed a certificate of appropriateness, and so they did apply for that, and it was heard at the May 9th BOAR meeting. In the staff report and their presentation to the BOAR, it stated that the rear steps and the stoop were removed from the back of the house. An 18-by-18-foot deck made of pressure-treated wood was added, and it extends into the rear yard and takes up most of the rear yard. It also stated that the deck is built as not within the guidelines. It's too massive. It dominates the rear yard, and if the deck would be added to the house, or if a deck would be added to the house, then it should be more proportional and more in scale with the house. It should be 12-by-18 rather than 18-by-18. There were six design guidelines that they cited in the staff report. There are two in particular that apply, 14-4, which states that historic green areas and spaces of the site should be retained and maintained, and then 39-2, which states porches and decks should be compatible in scale and materials with the principal structure and with adjacent and surrounding buildings. Mr. Foster was present at the BOAR hearing, and he stated that he owns the property, but his son lives there, and he built the deck. He acknowledged that he didn't get a permit. He didn't get a COA for it, but he thought that it was included with the garage permit and the garage COA, but it should be noted that there wasn't any indication in the permit request about a deck. Nothing was stated about that. There was no deck showing on the site plan that was included with the application for the COA, so it is questionable as to whether or not that's the case. He contended that because it's not seen from the street, and if you're facing head-on to the house, you can't see it from the street, but if you're walking down the street, you can. But because it's not seen from the street and because there are commercial properties behind there, that it's not any kind of negative. It wouldn't detract from the character of the neighborhood or the historic district. The only comments that the BOAR had when he asked that it be able to remain as built was that the deck was too large and that people should be aware when they own properties in historic districts, people should be aware of the regulations, the H1 regulations, and they should apply for the proper permits. They voted unanimously to disapprove the request. They agreed with the staff's recommendation, and they recommended that he come back with a design for a smaller deck. He decided to appeal this, and so in his appeal letter, he said that the BOAR acted in an arbitrary manner and that 12 by 18 is an arbitrary figure. Before I did the staff report on this, I went to the site, and it does seem to violate the guidelines. It does take up most of the green space in the backyard, and it is larger than what you would expect the deck to be. It extends nearly to the front of the garage. If you could put that other picture up there. Kind of hard to see, but the deck extends almost back to here. Here's the paving in front of the garage, and then this is the only green space that's left on the property because all of this down here is driveway, and the driveway extends all the way over to the side property line. You can't see it? Here's the garage, and then the apron in front of the garage, the driveway, and then the deck goes. You can't see. The deck is not built on this picture, but the deck extends almost to there, and then it's just this little bit of green space right there that's left on the property. Pardon? Ransom is right down in front of the house. Down here? It would be right along here. So when we look at this, we determine that the BOAR did not act arbitrarily, and they acted consistently with past decisions, and there weren't any flaws in their study of the project, and it does seem to violate the guidelines, and we recommend that you disapprove this and uphold the BOAR for that reason and for the reason that if he would have applied for a building permit, as is required by Article V, then that would have triggered the BOAR process, and that's required by Article XIII. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Ms. Armstrong is here to present. Ms. Riker, I have another question. Well, go ahead. Did I hear you correctly? They not only did not apply for COA, but they did not apply for a regular building permit either? Right. So neither process was followed. Right. And both are required by the zoning ordinance, one by Article V and one by Article XIII. Right. So even if this didn't go back before the BOAR, the code enforcement? Building inspection. Building inspection would also have an action or a piece of this? Yes. Because they violated building inspection codes as well. They violated the zoning ordinance and two of the articles of the zoning ordinance, yes. Right. Two separate articles. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Riker, I guess I'm just dense, but help me understand. Is that a freestanding deck? It's not attached to the house or to the garage? I believe it's attached to the house. Okay. It is attached to the house? No, it's not. So it's a freestanding deck. It's not attached to the garage, not attached to the house, either one. Okay. Okay. Barbara. Yes. Do you know the dimensions on the backyard? I don't know how wide the property is, no. We can probably get that information for you. Okay. Somebody probably has that. Do you have the information on the size of the lot? 60 by 150. 60 by 150, but do we know what the dimension is on the back? From the house to the back lot. Oh, from the house to the back. It's approximately 40 feet. Is that after the deck or before the deck? After the deck. I'll ask you later because you really need to be on the mic. So we'll talk about it later. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Ms. Armstrong is here. Hello. I'd like to submit for the record a set of Article 13, the design guidelines, the minutes, and the staff report from the May 9th meeting. If we could have the slides, please. This is the property in question. This is the garage that was removed. It's an 18 by 21 foot garage that was removed, and the applicant went before the board in fall of 2006 to install a garage that is 24 by 27. This is the deck that upon inspection of the garage construction was found to be constructed, and it is 18 by 18 from the rear. It abuts the house but is not connected as far as any of the members going into the actual back wall of the addition that's on there now. This is the area of the yard, and this was taken after the demolition of the garage. You can see the deck in the corner, and this is the rear property line. Again, here's another view of the deck. This is from the rear of the deck looking forward, and the time that this was taken, the steps have not been created to step down into the yard. These were taken last month, showing the dimensions of the deck and proximity to the drive and the garage would be over in this area. Here's a view of the garage that had been constructed and the rear deck. Again, this is taken from the neighbor's yard, and obviously it's got much foliage in front of it. This back here is the rear of the property line. Here's the site plan submitted per the application for the deck in May of 2007. This helps you with the dimensions. The 50 feet wide by 136. As Ms. Rutgers stated in the staff report, and she did a very good job of summarizing this, during inspection of the garage came upon this deck being built. Obviously, I contacted the property owners stating that they needed to receive a permit from the Historic Preservation Office and building inspection to have the construction of the deck. Then the Board of Architecture did deem that it was too massive and took up too much green space. We are dealing with an as-built situation and not necessarily a proposal, so we were limited as far as the ramifications of what can happen as far as we weren't able to review it per its size. We would have obviously recommended that maybe it had been smaller if it was built prior to going before the board, but that was obviously not the case. I'm here to answer any questions. The application was made after the deck was built. What happened is I came upon that during the construction of the garage. Those pictures were taken prior to the demo in preparation for building the garage. It was noted at that time that the deck was built before the actual garage. I came upon just that they had finished because there were still wood frame members in the yard. At that time, I wrote a note to the applicant on site and stuck it in the door saying, please contact me regarding the deck that was built. Because I knew that the applicant's son lived in the property, I knew that the note would be received by somebody living in the property. At that time, they contacted our office, and we asked that they fill an application to go before the board to get approval for this. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Hypothetically, if this were an on-ground terrace, there would not be any problem? An on-ground terrace? That's not necessarily the case. With benches or furniture on it? Well, and that would be hard to review hypothetically without seeing, obviously, a plan. But if this was, say, if you're referring to a paved situation or a brick-lined paved area, I'm not quite sure that would be the case. Obviously, it's going to be up to the Board of Architecture Review to fully, because we do review areas that actually would have paving installed, such as concrete pavers or brick-paved areas. So if you're talking about a terrace that's brick-paved or any kind of paved hardscape surface, we would review that, and it would be ultimately the board's decision on that. But we would probably try to weigh in as far as the green space that would be retained in the yard. That answers your question? Well, I think it brings up several issues as far as I'm concerned. Is it a matter of using the green space? Is that the primary problem? That is the primary problem. The backyard space? The backyard space. We look at all four sides of the building, so we would be interested in retaining as much green space as possible in the yard. Is this just an extension of the living space of the lot, whether it's green or whether it's pebble concrete or whether it's wood? We look at all four sides of the building. We look to how much green space is being taken up of the building in any kind of hardscape or built environment. And what we would be looking for is how much green space is being taken up because we are concerned about retaining an amount of green space that would have a characteristic identity of a yard. Well, green space could be brown, too, because it's open, usable, outdoor space. I think my main objection to this is more an architectural thing, which we can't get involved in, rather than utilizing the visual planes that we're talking about, whether they be paved or whether they be wood or whether they be grass. Well, there's also green space and open space, and we're looking at both of these. Open space being an area that's not actually has a built enclosed area, which I think you're talking about, and then there's green space, and we are looking to how much yard people have per their green, per the open, per built environment or in either deck or hardscape area. When we talk about green space, though, I think we're talking about, or at least my impression in my 50-some years of experience, is that actually the green space can have implementations within it that might not be actually green, green, green. It could be buildings or it could be paving and so forth. It's still open green space. It's not roofed over. Within our guidelines, where we view green space as, and I think from our definition, and obviously you've got much more experience in many of these landscaping things than I do, but from our particular guidelines in this particular case, we look at anything that covers grass takes up green space, but then there's open space, which you're talking about. I mean, I know the guidelines and the size and scale and all that is part of the issue, but that's only one piece of the issue. The other part of the issue is two ordinances, articles of the law of the city were violated in putting up anything. So regardless of the size or the scale, we still have the question of the ordinances that were not followed. That's correct. Okay. My question is, you said that 12 by 18 would be okay, or do you want it 12 in width or in depth? That number I'm not quite sure is. I'm not quite sure exactly where that number came out, but I think it was, you know, if, for instance, this project was able to be reviewed prior to the as-built situation, you know, if there was something, you know, obviously the 18 by 18 has been deemed too massive. Any size that may have been smaller than that could come back. My reason for asking that is, will that affect whether or not you see the deck as you drive down or walk down the? Well, you know, we don't look at actually if you can just see it from the street. Our guidelines reflect all of that. I understand, but that was a comment here. Yeah, and I think that as you can see it, I mean, I think, you know, if it was ranged, you know, horizontal or vertical towards, you know, against the addition, I'm not quite sure that that matters, because within our guidelines we look at all four sides. But I think you can see it from the driveway if you're seeing the corner of the house. So, I mean, if you could see it from the street. So you wouldn't really care if it was 12 feet in depth or in width? Well, most likely it would be better if it was against and hugged the house, you know, as it does now, because that actually leaves much more of the yard, you know, if you're looking at the proximity between the actual garage and the deck. I mean, that space has been taken up the most. Mr. Graves, I think you had a question. Yeah. 14-4 says your historic green areas and spaces of the site should be retained, maintained, but it doesn't give any way that you can decide what that is. I mean, is that just a – Well, the guidelines – I mean, there's no ratios to green space to floor area, any of that sort of thing. It looks like you just – it's just something that you make up or what, I mean. Well, it's not necessarily that. I mean, the guidelines reflect we have 14 historic districts in all different areas, you know, given this small area to, you know, areas that have larger lots. And so the plan and what we review as far as the guidelines reflect a plan that we will be able to review and look to see, you know, we're looking to retain green space. And when we apply that guideline to a plan or a proposal that comes before us, we weigh that guideline to, is this project taking up more green space than the yard allows, that would act and make it more massive than it really is. Are there any other questions, staff? I have a question for the staff. Have there been fines that have been levied because of the ordinances that were not followed? I mean, it seems like this is two separate kind of things here. Does the city levy fines for not having acquired a building permit? I believe they do, but since this case is an appeal, you know, and it depends on if they – this process in some ways as far as whether they get a building permit from this process or not. And it's what the building inspection does after this that would matter. Thank you. Okay, any other questions of staff? If not, I guess we'll hear from the applicant. Are we ready to – I have some findings I'd like to present to you. Okay. Thank you. My name is Jim Amato, and I represent Alan Foster in this appeal of the BOAR's ruling. I guess before we get very much further, Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Richardson, before you find that there was a violation of an ordinance, you may have to hear what we have to say about how that happened. And I would ask you to reserve your judgment on that until you hear what did happen. It's not always as easy, you know, as it looks sometimes or is evident from some writing, but there was a building permit. And there was a BOAR approval for building a project in that backyard. Part of it was the garage. Part of it was the deck. And I'll have a member of the Board of the Building Inspector testify to what did happen that way. I do the findings of fact ahead of time because I want to make sure I get in the record for anything in the future, everything that we allege that took place. We take very great umbrage with what they call the guidelines. As you can see, there are no guidelines. They're just vague. You can interpret it any way you want to. And it's arbitrary. And those are the magic words for appeal. Arbitrary, capricious, you've heard it before. But in this case, I believe the Board of Architectural Review emphasized how arbitrary and how capricious and how vague these terms are. To use the term massive to begin with, you don't need a legal interpretation of that to know that it's arbitrary. You don't have to have a black law dictionary. Massive means what? To whom? It surely didn't mean it to the person who built it and the people who have to look at it. As you can tell by the photo they used, you'd have to fly over that building in that area to see what it is because you sure as heck can't see it from the street. And the people who live on either side and behind all approve of it. I'll enter these letters in the record. I think they prove the term arbitrary by using massive. And then turn around and say 12 by 18 isn't massive. 12 by 17 is still massive, I guess. But they prove their own arbitrary decision by themselves. The guidelines are so vague you can't find massive in the guidelines or unmassive, which would be the opposite of that, I guess. Also in the guidelines there are several buildings in the neighborhood where there are decks that have been constructed. We'll show you those. And no neighborhood person appeared ever to object to what had taken place there. The staff indicated that if a different procedure had been followed, the result would have been approved. Now, are we going to order this torn down because of a procedural review, which we don't believe we violated anyway? But if the issue is massive and it ruins the neighborhood and it's not good and it's all that, what difference does it make, the procedure that was used to get there? I think where the BOAR gets themselves in trouble in this town always is by definitions of too tall, too big, massive, and it's all in the eyes of the beholder at the BOAR. A good example was a building proposed for High and Broadway that never got built. This panel approved a 14-story building on that site when the building plans came before you. I'm not speaking individually. Some of you may not have been there then. And got down there and the BOAR turned it down because it was too high for the neighborhood. They had the very tall building across the street, which is Kentucky Central, was Kentucky Central, Central Bank now. You got on the other corner of that same intersection, you have the Hyatt Regency. On the back of the end of that property that was proposed, you have the big blue building. All of them much taller than what was proposed. I won't go into that much more because that's another day. But I'm telling you, when you use terms like massive and too big, too tall, too wide, too long, in a historic area, it is not guidelines. Guidelines are something more concrete than that. And I believe you can use your own judgment like everybody else has to in this case. There's nothing wrong with that deck. You've got green space on each side of it. You've got a 40-foot green space off the end of it, back to the fence. You've got a garage, which is not an interference. That's part of the landscape. So what we're asking you to do is look at those items to determine that vague in the definitions and the term massive is vague in itself. I'm going to put Alan on because I think you need to listen to a little bit about the procedure in the findings. In the findings, the fact in there I do show, the applicant did obtain the proper building permit and certificate of appropriateness to demolish and reconstruct a garage and the deck site. At that time, he was not building the deck, but he did follow the procedure. He got the building permit. And that is where the building inspector comes into the picture. And I guess I better put him on first. Mr. Hoagland, would you describe for the members of the commission the generally accepted procedure for the continuance of a building permit? In most cases, if there's a permit that's already been established for that piece of property, most times it's not a problem of adding a deck because this was an H-1 district that it did require the letter of appropriateness. I believe if Alan had had that on that original drawing showing the deck, it probably would have passed, but I can't say that for sure. But it's hard for us building officials to be able to sit down with someone and say, all you need to do is to meet the code requirements for the structural strength of that deck. Then it's approved. It's not a big issue because this particular deck is well built, well over the residential construction. And not only that, the size of it may sound a little bit larger than it really is because there's a two-foot bench seating on two sides of it, which will restrict the size of the actual deck. You put the four-top round table on there and a grill, and it's full. But normally the process isn't an issue in most cases, but it was because of the H-1 overlay, and they didn't have the original drawing on the submittal for the letter of appropriateness for the garage. I think if it had been there, I think things would have been fine. But because they weren't, now we've got to do a different process. And normally all the homeowner would have to do is come in and pay for that permit. We add it to the permit that's existing. But because it wasn't approved, which was an oversight not on Mr. Foster's side, but it was his son's, he had the materials there, he went ahead and built the deck. And I got involved after the fact that it was built. So what I tried to do was to go to Amelia and find out what we had to have. She needed a site plan, the drawings. The deck itself, the residential inspector, Jim Tucker, had already looked at it. It was well within the guidelines that he required for residential construction. In fact, it's well beyond that, and it's probably more in the commercial area. But I think that had we gone the correct process, there wouldn't have been an issue. But I think that that was what the problem is. But as far as the building construction of the building and, I mean, the deck, there's not an issue. As far as we're concerned, it's well built. It's well within the guidelines of the building code. But with the downtown redevelopment that we're going to be dealing, decks and patios are going to be an issue because all these people are going to be wanting decks and patios. And if that's what our downtown redevelopment is going to be, if this is going to be the first stumbling block, there's going to be a lot of people that's going to hesitate on even investing in the downtown area. Any questions? Does anybody have any questions? My question is, you're saying that they did not, Article V didn't make any difference in this case? I'm not sure what Article V was. Is that the article that calls for the letter of appropriateness? Has to do with getting a permit to build an outdoor structure or anything outside. That is correct. And he did not get the letter of appropriateness for the deck. It was after the fact. And that's why we actually did not release a building permit, because we couldn't get the release from the historic preservation. The deck was already built. That's when I got involved with it. And in most cases, if it wasn't historic, there wouldn't be an issue. So if you don't live in a historic district and you submit a request for reconstructing something in your backyard and you don't have a full plan and you decide to build something else, you don't have to get an additional permit. Is that what you're saying? No. In most cases, you will have to get a permit. But coming down, if you decided you wanted to build a garage somewhere else other than H1. Right. And you're building a garage. Well, you decide, well, I want to put a deck on. It's not an issue. Come down, show us a site plan. If your construction meets it, it meets the zoning setbacks, there's not an issue. We can issue it right then, after the fact. After the fact? Yes, ma'am. So if I lived outside a historic district, I could get a permit to build one thing and build several other things and get a permit after the fact in violation of Article V? See, I'm not quite clear on where you're going here or what the process is. You would still have to get the permit. But a lot of times people don't realize that they've got to get a permit for a deck. You know, it's only a deck, you know, or it might be a patio. And they don't realize that they have to get that. And once they do it, going backwards in most cases is not a problem. It's only because of the H1. If this was already built in some other neighborhood, it meets the structural requirements, setbacks, whatever, then we allow that. It goes on all the time. Contractors will come in and say, we decided we wanted to build the homeowner wanted to build a bigger deck. It's not a problem. We just add that on to the existing. They just have to pay for the permit. But in most cases, you've got to have a permit for almost anything that you put in your yard, such as fences, and people will put them up not knowing that they have to have a permit for a fence. But, yes, they do. But in most cases, we allow it. All we have to do is get the money for the permit, and it's over. Are there any other questions? After everything is presented, yes. Let me call Alan Foster. Madam Chairman and the Commission, I'm Alan Foster. I don't know whether I can add much to what these two gentlemen have already said, except I did build the deck without a permit for the deck, but I did have a building permit for the garage. And we've always been able to go, just like he said, we can go down there and attach a deck to a garage permit and just pay the fee and go on. I mean, I didn't realize that in H-1, this is the first time I've had any property in H-1, so I'm not real familiar with all their requirements, and I'm definitely not familiar with too massive in scope. I don't know how to design things based on those two words. Okay. Do I? I mean, I don't have anything else to say, except we built the deck, and we thought we could get the permit and attach it to the garage permit like we've done in the future, which all builders do. But, I mean, I'm not the builder on this thing. I'm just the owner, and my son lives there. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Motto. Yes, ma'am. I have some pictures that I'd like to show you in the neighborhood and on the site. This, speaking about size, this is that new apartment, our condo unit up on the corner where the church used to be that dominates the whole area in the H-1 district, and it's in the H-1 district. That's just to give you a little bit of scale. Okay. This is looking down the driveway of the property in question, which is on the right, and there's no sign or anything of a deck there to be seen from the street by passersby or anyone else. Okay. Another one. This is the right side of the property, which shows the green space, which is down along the deck, going all the way back to the back fence. This is on the right side from the street, on the right side, and the right side of the deck, which shows the green space and the trees over by the deck. Okay. There's the deck. Just a plain old deck. And there's grass and there's trees on both sides. And it goes back 40 feet to the fence. This is a view from the apartment house right next door. You can see the deck up on the left there. It butts up to the house. The only view that people over in that apartment or using that driveway get is of the herbes and roses, and there's some trees that screen it. They don't see that deck. Yep. That shows the grass, green space off of the end of the deck going back to the fence in the back 40 feet. Green space left there. This is a view of a deck that was built in the area. I don't know when it was built. But to show you that it is the same material, the same scale, roughly the same size, I don't know exactly what the size of it is, but there's a deck that you can see there. This is a deck. That's a house along Central, isn't it? Along Central Avenue. There's a house along Central, which is right across the street and down the street. And it has a deck that, if you measured it, it would be about the same in general square footage, not in foot by foot. That same one? Same one. Now you can see how big it is. It goes all the way across the house where this deck doesn't. Okay. Is that it? Well, that's just to show you that it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb in the district. And it doesn't offend anyone. I have here four letters, one from Evelyn Littrell, saying she's enthusiastic about a lovely deck behind the house. And she owns a property that is two houses up and across the street and has a deck behind her house. The deck which Mr. Foster has built is no stretch of the imagination, either too massive or out of scale in the neighborhood. That's Ms. Evelyn Littrell. Susan Armstrong of 135 Ransom owns a home that's just two doors down the street from Alan Foster's property. And it should not be considered too massive or out of scale for the neighborhood. And she said she's personally inspected the deck in question. I find nothing wrong with it. I like it very much and would like to have one just like it. Gerald and Melissa Thompson of 131 Ransom, dear members of the Planning Commission, has come to our attention. The Board of Architecture Review has decided that they think that the deck which Alan Foster has built at 129 Ransom Avenue is too massive and out of scale. We live right next door to Mr. Foster's property, and we do not agree with the Board of Architectural Determination. We think that the deck is in scale, perfectly in scale with the neighborhood, and in no way qualifies as too massive. And from Stewart Properties, that's the apartment next door, I'd like to convey how pleased I am that Alan Foster has invested the time, energy, and financial resources necessary to build a beautiful deck at the rear of the residence. I have property interest in that fourplex, which is right next door to Mr. Foster's property. I am quite pleased to see that someone has taken it upon himself to make such a sizable investment in a neighborhood. Excuse me. Thank you. I'll save anything else until rebuttal. Building inspection. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, Bob Carpenter with the Division of Building Inspection. I just wanted to clarify a few things. A building permit for the deck was never issued. We did issue a permit for the garage and some remodeling inside. Now, it is procedure. Once we find something like this, we give the applicant a chance to remedy it through these methods before we site them. And we do amend the original permit to include the deck. So there's part truths in both of those. Any other questions? All right. Thank you for that clarification. Does anybody else have any questions? I have one question for Mr. Carpenter. Can you amend the building permit after the fact, after the deck is built? Yes, we can. We just add that square footage onto it. We actually issue a new building permit, but we just amend the original one. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for building inspection? I have one. If it's in an H1 district, would you amend the building permit without sending it through the BOAR process? No. No, anything in the H1 overlay has to have a letter of appropriateness before it is permitted. Therefore, any expansion on the original permit would have to be approved by BOAR also. Yes, do you have a question, Mr. Cravens? Okay. We've heard from the staff and the applicant, and now I guess we need to see if there's any other comments or questions before we ask for rebuttal. At this time, I guess we would ask for, did you want to do a rebuttal now, Mr. Motto? Are you about to close it? The staff hasn't responded as to whether they have any rebuttal. Yes, I would like to say a few things, and I think Amelia may have something to say also. One thing, when I did my presentation, I did not say that if he had gone through the process, the result would have been different. If he had gone through the process, the result might have been different, but one of the BOAR's comments was that the deck was too big. Whether or not he got a permit, the deck was too big. 18 by 18 is out of scale with the house. It may not be out of scale with the neighborhood, but it's out of scale with the house. It's a small house, and 12 by 18 is proportional. It's two to three. If they would have said 13 by 18, if they would have said 12 by 15, anything like that, that would have been arbitrary. Twelve by 18 is not an arbitrary figure. That's a normal proportional figure that you would use for a deck. As far as Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, it does state Article 5-2A, no building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to, or structurally altered, nor shall any of said activities be commenced without a building permit, therefore issued by the Division of Building Inspection. Mr. Carpenter did say that they can add on to them afterwards, but as he also said, if it's in an H-1 district, it would have triggered the process and he would have had to go to get a Certificate of Appropriateness for the deck. Any other? Okay. Any questions for Ms. Ranker first? Okay. I would just like to say the guidelines are not arbitrary, but written broadly to reflect the projects that are applied to you, the concepts that are applied to each situation, and the H-1 process does not require, it requires review prior to construction in details, mass scale, and design that are reviewed in each application. We do review decks quite frequently, and the deck projects come up all the time, and they were reviewed for the mass and scale and the coverage of land. And this was not disproved due to, it's already built, but disproved because as built it does not meet the guidelines. And we ask that the BOER's decision is reflected to disprove this project. I have a question. Just a moment. We have a couple of questions. Okay. My question is, if the deck had been 12 by 18, would you all have approved it? Reviewing this, we probably would recommend approval. It's actually up to the BOER to make that decision. Okay. The Mr. Model showed some pictures of other decks. Were those approved by the BOER? Not all of them. Actually, many of them predate, and even the large building that was shown in the first slide actually is not within, actually, the historic district. As Ms. Riker said, the two by three would have been approved. Is that in your guidelines for scale? Our guidelines are written broadly to, and we review plans that are given to us. We don't necessarily set the dimensions. We have to review those, and so. So this is something that the Board of Architects review, would just interpret themselves. So it really doesn't have anything to do with the guidelines. It's the way they interpret the guidelines. Well, not necessarily. I mean, it's weighed with the mass and scale of the house, the lot, the garage, paving. All of that is taken into consideration. The two by three would be consistent is what you're trying to say. I'm trying to say that they're reviewing broadly what's actually on site when they review an addition. So they review all the mass and scale. I can't find any ratios or anything in here. And they're written very broadly to accept projects that come to us, because we review projects. We don't necessarily set the dimensions for people to have things. We want people to submit things that they would like, and we review them within their realm of their yard, their area, which is not necessarily conducive to everybody's yard. It's conducive to what they have in their adjacent neighbor and their adjacent landscape and their adjacent properties. I hear what you're saying. I just have a hard time. I don't know how the public interprets these guidelines. It's my question. And many times, if, you know, we had actually dealt with, in this particular case, very frequently with Mr. Foster to come up with plans for the garage and so forth, if he would simply have been able to bring forth what he was planning for the garage, we could have guided him on, couldn't tell him exactly, but we could have guided him in a direction if he was, if that was something that would have been approvable within the guidelines. But that was not given to us. I'd just like to follow up on that, because I am curious about his point. I thought, so the two to three is not in the guidelines that Ms. Rackers referred to. Is that in the guidelines? I'm sorry. I didn't hear your question. Okay. You referred to that, the two to three. No. What I was saying was two to three is a normal proportion. It's not something that's in the guidelines. They refer to mass scale and something being in scale with a property. Eighteen by eighteen is one to one, twelve by eighteen is two to three, and that was just the point that I was making, is that it's not arbitrary. It's a direct proportion. It's something that is typical, normal, proportional dimensions. It's like six by nine or two by three or whatever. It's just a normal proportion. It wasn't arbitrary. The point I was trying to make was, like, thirteen by eighteen would have been arbitrary or twelve by fifteen or something like that might have been arbitrary, but twelve by eighteen is not. That's the only point I was trying to make. If there are no other questions, any other questions of any staff? Then Mr. Matos. I'd just like to summarize for a moment. I think the answers that were given here just now point up the fact that the guidelines are arbitrary, capricious, and vague, and that's the legal findings that you can make. To answer your question, Ms. Whitman, I don't know what it would be when it got back to the Board of Architectural Review, whether it be twelve by eighteen or eleven by seventeen or whatever they come up with. It's arbitrary, and a normal person, a reasonable person cannot interpret that. We ask you to apply the fairness doctrine. This man has a lot of money in this project and in the garage, everything that he's done, and he didn't intentionally subvert the process. He got the permit from both places for the garage and assumed it went on with the rest of what he was doing in there until, by following procedure, at the end of the project he can go back, as the building inspector told you, and attach it. I don't think they have that same provision at the BOAR. Thank you very much for your attention. I know it's been tedious. Any other questions? Okay, we'll close the hearing, I guess, turn it over to the commission. Madam Chairman, generally in deck design, and I've built a lot of them, we try to make the deck the size of the living room in the house and maybe the breakfast area because, if you think about it, you have the same furniture on a deck that you would have in your living room and that you would have your breakfast table out there, and you'd have a sitting area table and chairs, and now with these new outdoor kitchens that take up, you know, I mean, they're massive, but I'm not sure that deck would even hold some of those, but you have a grill and you have cooking. So, you know, 18 by 18, especially with the seating in there, would just be adequate, you know, to have all those things on it. And then I'm looking at the site plan here. It appears that you can still drive into the garage, both cars, and in this document it says that the deck goes almost to the front facade of the garage, but yet you can still drive your car in there and it's even sticking over past the deck. So, looking at it in two dimension here, it looks fine. And as far as the permit process, I'd hate to think how many decks are built around here without permits and without people being registered with the city to build and all those sorts of things. So I'm going to support that applicant. Any other comments? Discussion? Yeah. I know this is a scratch record, but will the new guidelines do anything to help people understand what scale is? One of the things, I'm Betty Kerr, Historic Preservation. One of the things that I think will facilitate that considerably is the illustrations, architectural illustrations and photographs that will accompany the text and give people who the written might not translate something to them, something visual to connect to, to help them understand the point that's being made by the philosophy reflected in the written guidelines. I'm glad to hear that because that's been our issue all the way along, how to make these guidelines where they're more people friendly, more usable. I believe it will help terrifically in that respect. Thank you. Any other questions, discussion? Thank you. I didn't have a question. I just had a comment at the time appropriate related to findings. Yes. The applicant's attorney has made reference to the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the board's decision, and you obviously could determine if that was the case or not. The ordinance that you're dealing with does not require you to find that the Board of Architectural Review was actually arbitrary and capricious. You're applying the same guidelines that they are in a de novo hearing. So I have, depending on which way you all want to go, obviously if you want to support the staff, there are findings in the record. If you do not, then I've got findings that are, I think, more in keeping with what the commission might be thinking and in keeping with what the requirements or the lesser requirements of your ordinance. Okay. Did you want me to read those into the record? Because they're usually read in with the motion. I have them prepared as a motion if someone wants to make it, but I don't presume that it's going to be made or I don't, you know. Right. So those are not to be read unless we get such a motion, and I don't make motions. This hearing is closed. It's open for discussion among the commission, and if commission members are ready for a motion, then we are open for a motion from a commission member. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion, please. I move to adopt the findings, following findings of the fact, based on the evidence presented to us today at the hearing and the review that we've had of the BOR related to the one. What is your motion? And then we need the findings. My motion is that we approve for them. I move that we fine for the applicant that lives at 129 Ransom Avenue. So your motion, sir, is to support the appeal of the BOR opinion by the applicant for the property at Ransom Avenue. Yes. Based on your findings. The deck is constructed at the subject property. It is not in violation of design guidelines adopted by the historic commission because the deck does not unduly remove existing green space from the property, and the deck is not out of proportion to the house and garage located on the property. The applicant did not follow the required procedures to assign the certificate of appropriateness or building permit as he should have, but the building permit may be amended to permit the deck as it is built. I move to approve the appeal based on the findings of fact and grant certificate of appropriateness to the deck at 129 Ransom Avenue. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay, the ayes have it. Motion passes. Vandy, over. Did you turn it back to me? At this time I would like to turn the meeting back over to show that Mr. Vaughn has returned and the meeting has been turned back over to Mr. Vaughn. Thank you, Ms. Coffery. We're still under commission items, and we do have another commission item that's not on the agenda, and Mr. Penn has an item he wants to share. Mr. Chairman, in view of the consent decree and review of how we're going to go from this day forward, I would like to ask that we, at our April work session, we work with the consent decree and how that affects us in going forward. We look at our ordinances. We look at our procedures. And we look at the consent decree, and we determine how we're going to go from this day forward. And I would like, Mr. Chairman, for you to put that on the agenda and to deal with it as you see fit. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. That has, in light of recent events and I would say discussion and debate we've had among plans, that would be appropriate to put that on the April work session agenda with regards to our procedures and ordinances as well as the recent consent decree. And with that, I would say duly noted and would like to put that on the April work session agenda. I would also like to, in accordance with our bylaws, appoint a committee to look at this in advance of that work session. And we'll appoint that committee at our next meeting in a couple of weeks. Mr. Chairman, I might suggest that if the commission gives you blessing, you could appoint those persons administratively if the commission votes today to authorize such action. Okay. Does the commission feel free to give me authority to do that? I would agree. Okay. All right. Well, what I'd like to do is take a motion for both of those items. I'll entertain a motion for the April work session item as well as the committee. So moved. Second. Okay. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Thank you all very much. I think that concludes our commission items at this time. I'll ask Mr. King if he has any staff items. No staff items for your action, Mr. Chairman. I do want to remind you we will be having a work session, the March work session, next week. We have a pretty full agenda scheduled subject to a final approval by the chair, but we will be having a discussion of the digital billboard. I want to give the commission a full update on the infill and redevelopment task force activities, and we're having a discussion with those on Tuesday with the council's planning committee. So Thursday will be a good time to give you a full update on that. And also another item you've probably heard about the management partners, management audit of the urban county government, a number of recommendations made in this area, and I would like to give you a preliminary presentation on what has been recommended by the consultant. So I think that will be a pretty interesting and full day. Thank you very much, Ms. King. I don't see anyone in the audience. Mr. Vaughn, we have a staff item also. We have another APA. I'm sorry. An APA audio conference next Wednesday at 4 o'clock in our conference room. It's called Confronting NIMBYs. It starts at 4 o'clock and it will go to 5. It will be good for one credit towards your continuing education. Okay. What day is that again next week? Wednesday the 19th at 4 o'clock. And if anybody plans on attending, if you could let me know by Tuesday afternoon so that I could have enough seats arranged in the conference room for everybody. Confronting NIMBYs, not in my backyard. But if you could just let me know by Tuesday. It starts at 4 and goes to 5. Are you getting activity or participation from the commission at your sessions? Sometimes. And we have Board of Adjustment members. We've already got four people that have said that they're going to come. And Ms. Phillips brings her class sometimes. And people from APA or AICP members that are here in Lexington also attend. Yeah, we're getting better attendance. That's good. That's good. Thank you. If there's no further business, I'll accept the motion for adjournment. Thank you all. Leaving me a song.