# Board of Adjustment - May 19, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 19, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4258 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4258?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-05-19 - **Last revised**: May 19, 2017 - **Length**: 9,549 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 Board of Adjustment convened on May 19, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed five agenda items during the session, including variance requests for residential properties, conditional use permits for commercial developments, and a revocation hearing. All five items brought before the board were approved following deliberation and voting. The meeting included two public comments from community members and resulted in a total of five motions and votes taken by the board members. ## Attendance **Present:** • Branden Gross • Thomas Glover • Chad Needham • Harry Clarke • Jan Meyer **Absent:** • Joan Whitman • Larry Forester **Late:** • None Five members were present for the May 19, 2017 meeting, with two members absent. No members arrived late to the session. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered five items during the meeting, approving all with varying vote margins. **PLN-BOA-17-00024** [timestamp: 02:10] - The board unanimously approved a variance to reduce the required setback for a 6-foot tall fence at 345 Dudley Road. Harry Clarke made the motion, seconded by Jan Meyer. All five members voted in favor: Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, and Jan Meyer. The approval includes conditions requiring the fence to be constructed according to the submitted plans, obtaining a fence permit from Building Inspection, and maintaining existing landscaping between the fence and sidewalk. **PLN-BOA-17-00031** [timestamp: 03:45] - A variance to reduce the minimum required front yard from 10 feet to 4.5 feet at 344 Romany Road passed unanimously (5-0). Chad Needham motioned with Harry Clarke seconding. The same five members voted in favor. Conditions require construction according to submitted plans and obtaining all necessary permits from Planning, Engineering, and Building Inspection divisions. **PLN-BOA-17-00016** [timestamp: 05:20] - An amended conditional use permit to expand on-site parking at 3100 Tates Creek Road passed 4-0 with one abstention. Harry Clarke motioned, Chad Needham seconded. Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, and Jan Meyer voted in favor, while Branden Gross abstained. Approval conditions include establishing parking areas per submitted plans and implementing an updated storm water management plan. **PLN-BOA-17-00027** [timestamp: 07:45] - The board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for operating a cocktail lounge in a bicycle shop at 439 Southland Drive. Thomas Glover made the motion, Chad Needham seconded. All five members voted in favor. Conditions restrict exterior signage references to cocktail service and limit alcoholic beverages to beer and wine only. **C-2015-57** [timestamp: 09:30] - The board unanimously voted to schedule a revocation hearing for Dr. Andrew Schroyer and Charlsey Y. Schroyer at 1096 Wellington Way. Jan Meyer motioned with Harry Clarke seconding, and all five members voted in favor with no conditions attached. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the board during the public comment period. **Larry Hamilton** spoke at [timestamp: 00:45] regarding the Cohen Brothers matter. Hamilton expressed his opposition to postponing the hearing for Cohen Brothers, stating that there have been long-standing issues with the property that need to be addressed. **Susan Wedding** addressed the board at [timestamp: 06:30] concerning the Immanuel Baptist Church parking expansion proposal. Wedding raised concerns about potential water drainage problems that could impact her property as a result of the proposed parking expansion project. ## Contested Items During the May 19, 2017 meeting, one item generated community opposition and discussion. **Cohen Brothers Postponement** The primary contested matter involved a postponement request for the Cohen Brothers case. Larry Hamilton spoke in opposition to granting the postponement, expressing concerns about long-standing issues associated with the property in question. Hamilton's objection centered on what he characterized as ongoing problems with the Cohen Brothers property that had persisted over time. He argued against allowing further delays in addressing the case, suggesting that the postponement would only extend unresolved issues that had already been affecting the community. The specific details of the underlying Cohen Brothers case were not elaborated upon in the available materials, but Hamilton's opposition indicated that community members had been dealing with property-related concerns for an extended period. His testimony suggested frustration with the pace of resolution and a desire to move forward with whatever proceedings or decisions were pending regarding the Cohen Brothers property. The outcome of Hamilton's opposition to the postponement request was not specified in the provided information, leaving unclear whether the postponement was ultimately granted or denied by the governing body. ## Variance for 6-foot fence at 345 Dudley Road [timestamp: 02:10] The board considered application PLN-BOA-17-00024, a variance request submitted by Weston Lyons for property at 345 Dudley Road. Lyons sought approval to reduce the required setback for a 6-foot tall fence that would replace an existing 4-foot fence located in a side street side yard. The applicant presented the request to the board, explaining the need to replace the current fencing with a taller structure while maintaining its existing location. The variance was necessary because the proposed 6-foot fence would not meet the standard setback requirements for the side street side yard area. The board reviewed the application and determined that the request met the criteria for granting a variance. The application was approved, allowing Lyons to proceed with installing the 6-foot fence at the reduced setback distance as requested. ## Variance for front yard at 344 Romany Rd. [timestamp: 03:45] The Board of Appeals considered application PLN-BOA-17-00031, a variance request for the Romany Road IGA Supermarket at 344 Romany Road. The applicant sought to reduce the minimum required front yard setback from 10 feet to 4.5 feet. Jacob Walbourn presented the case to the board. The variance would allow the supermarket to maintain a reduced setback of 4.5 feet from the front property line, representing a 5.5-foot reduction from the standard 10-foot requirement established in the zoning ordinance. The board approved the variance request, allowing the Romany Road IGA Supermarket to proceed with the reduced front yard setback as requested. ## Conditional use permit for parking expansion at 3100 Tates Creek Road [timestamp: 05:20] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-17-00016, a request from Immanuel Baptist Church for an amended conditional use permit to expand on-site parking at 3100 Tates Creek Road. Gregg Thornton presented the case for the parking expansion. The church sought to modify their existing conditional use permit to accommodate additional parking spaces on their property. The board approved the conditional use permit amendment, allowing Immanuel Baptist Church to proceed with their parking expansion project at the Tates Creek Road location. ## Conditional use permit for cocktail lounge at 439 Southland Drive [timestamp: 07:45] The board considered application PLN-BOA-17-00027, a request by William Crank for a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge within a bicycle shop located at 439 Southland Drive. Chuck Ellinger served as the key speaker presenting information about this unique business concept that would combine bicycle retail and repair services with alcoholic beverage service. The proposal represented an unconventional mixed-use approach, integrating recreational retail with hospitality services at the same location. The application sought approval to allow the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the existing bicycle shop premises. This type of hybrid business model required special consideration under local zoning regulations, as cocktail lounges typically require conditional use permits to operate in certain zoning districts. Following the presentation and discussion of the application details, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit. The approval allows William Crank to proceed with operating the cocktail lounge component of his bicycle shop business at 439 Southland Drive, subject to any conditions that may have been established as part of the permit approval process. The decision enables this innovative business concept to move forward, combining bicycle sales and services with alcoholic beverage service under one roof at the Southland Drive location. ## Revocation hearing for 1096 Wellington Way [timestamp: 09:30] The council addressed agenda item C-2015-57, a revocation hearing for the property at 1096 Wellington Way owned by Dr. Andrew Schroyer and Charlsey Y. Schroyer. The hearing was scheduled due to alleged non-compliance with conditional use permit terms. Jim Marx served as the key speaker presenting information regarding this revocation proceeding. The hearing focused on determining whether the property owners had violated the conditions of their conditional use permit, which would warrant revocation of the permit. The council ultimately approved the revocation hearing, indicating that the procedural requirements for moving forward with the revocation process had been met. This approval allows the formal hearing process to proceed, where evidence of non-compliance can be presented and the property owners can respond to the allegations. The revocation hearing represents a significant enforcement action, as conditional use permits are granted with specific terms and conditions that property owners must follow. When these conditions are not met, the municipality has the authority to revoke the permit, which could impact the property's allowable uses. The approval of this agenda item establishes the framework for the formal revocation proceedings to move forward, ensuring due process for the property owners while addressing the alleged permit violations. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-17-00024** — passed (5-0): Variance to reduce the required setback of a 6-foot tall fence at 345 Dudley Road - **PLN-BOA-17-00031** — passed (5-0): Variance to reduce the minimum required front yard from 10 feet to 4.5 feet at 344 Romany Rd. - **PLN-BOA-17-00016** — passed (4-0): Amended conditional use permit to expand the on-site parking at 3100 Tates Creek Road - **PLN-BOA-17-00027** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge in a bicycle shop at 439 Southland Drive - **C-2015-57** — passed (5-0): Schedule a revocation hearing for Dr. Andrew Schroyer & Charlsey Y. Schroyer at 1096 Wellington Way --- ## Full transcript Life is not tried, it is merely survived, if you're standing outside the fire. There's this love that is burning, deep in my soul, constantly yearning to get out of control. Wanting to glide higher and higher I can't abide standing outside the fire Standing outside the fire Standing outside the fire Life is not tried, it is merely survived If you're standing outside the fire Standing outside the bar Standing outside the bar Life is not tried, it is married Good afternoon everyone. Today we will have the Board of Adjustments meeting for May 19, 2017. The first order of business will be the approval of the minutes, which I think I'm going to slide down until Mr. Glover returns in case he has any comments to the minutes before we proceed. So with that, I will sound the agenda regarding postponements, withdrawals, and other items requiring no discussion. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals today? Please approach. Will Carley representing Coen Brothers. We have the Coen Brothers, which is PLNBOA 17-26. Coen Brothers administrative appeal to change the use of the property from one legal non-conforming use to another legal non-conforming use in the light industrial zone at 757 East 7th Street. Is there anyone here? Anyone else here on this matter? All right. Please proceed. We'd just like a 30-day postponement to the June 30th hearing. We'd like to clean up some of the language within the application and the staff recommendation. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting, but there may be a couple of folks here that are talking in the hallway that we're here for that case, Council Member K. Oh, okay. And so we might want to take a moment to let them know this discussion is going on. Gotcha. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Good save, Jim. Yeah. So we've had requests for 30, well I'm not sure if it will be 30 days, but a postponement to our next hearing next month. I've been informed that there are people here on behalf of this matter. Does anyone object to a postponement until next month? Is this the server in the junkyard? Yes sir. A project? I want to go ahead and do business today, please. All right. In that event, would you please come and approach? Okay. Hey, how you doing? Good. Gary? Will. Who? Will. Will. Oh, please meet you. Please meet you. My name's Gary Hamilton. I used to be a neighborhood association president for Loudoun. I sat on a noise committee that failed for four or five years, and I've lived behind a junkyard since the 60s. I'm not real smart, but I can tell you what that's like. So I'd like to go ahead and do it today. The neighbors were here. You know, these people are the ones that applied. I feel like that they ought to have their ducks in a row. You know, I took time off from my day to come down here. And I've been at Third Mercy since the 60s. Let's settle it today. And how many neighbors do you guys have today? I don't know. Please raise your hand. My brother. Okay. Well, then if you would have a seat real fast, and then we'll hear the applicant tell us exactly why they want a postponement. All right. Thank you. Thank you. We're asking for the postponement because when we had the report recommendation written and the application filled out, we were asking to keep the actual use of it now, but to add the junkyard part of it. I have heard about Mr. Hamilton's concerns as well as those of the neighbor. We're willing to honor those. We're willing to adhere to any conditions already in staff approval. this is a very complex issue in the aspect of if you don't if you've never seen one of our operations you might have some concerns we're actually going to be lessening the noise lessening the disturbances no loudspeaker in that yard no lighting into the neighbor's yards we're actually going to be keeping it clean and there will be i would say a drastic reduction of any burning or smelting that went on previously because we're using as a customer service lot to be able to pull apart car operations. If there's more technical questions for that, I've brought the owner, and we'll be partnering here, Sean Garber, that can answer in greater detail. Yeah, what exactly, why do we exactly need to postpone it? Well, in its original language, it's saying it's going to go from one non-conforming legal use which i believe is the salvage yard to another long another legal non-conforming use which is the junkyard and in that capacity we want to be able to just add it we want to be able to keep that zoning from the original its original purpose and use now but be able to do the junkyard part of it on the property this will not create any greater use there will not be an increase of capacity it will just we just like to keep the zoning because we know how difficult it is to obtain that at a later date. So just to simplify, you want to keep the non-conforming use you currently have. Yes. And then add an additional non-conforming use. Yes, which would be the pull apart operation, which will actually be better for the neighborhood and the residents. All right, okay, have a seat. Councilman Kaye, looks like he wants to. Thank you, and thank you to the Board and Chair for recognizing me. I have been in conversation with Mr. Hamilton about this and with the people who are proposing the development. And my understanding is that the wording as presently presented to you simply does not represent what they want to do. And it's not a simple word change. If you change the wording from, right now it says they're going to change the use of that nonconforming property. what they want to do is add and when you add instead of change it complicates everything so i believe although i regret that mr hamilton and others have come before you today that a postponement seems to be the right thing to do to give the staff time to correct the language represent fully what the people proposing this would like to have happen there and understand what the the implications of that would be, and then you can look at that case. So I would speak in favor of postponement. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Marks, based upon the testimony of the applicant, does it sound like this is – was there an issue with the application, or has the – as the processes run its course, the applicant now essentially would be a different application? or enough of a change that it would be imprudent to hear this today? I think that the initial application was just a clarity issue, that it was not clear that they had any intention of maintaining any of the existing nonconforming use. In the initial application, it was, from what I understood, a request to change the use completely. My understanding for Mr. Carley is that they would certainly be lessening the extent to which they are operating a scrap iron storage and adding in this junkyard use. So they would not be increasing the nonconformity per se, but having sort of the same amount of nonconformity but divided up between two uses. And that was not really addressed in our staff report. And I think if we add a little more time, that's probably beneficial for us to take a closer look at the division. So you're saying that you don't think on its face it would be rejected, the application for increasing the use, because they're going to decrease the scrapyard portion? yeah we can't commit either way as to how this would play out it's possible in the final analysis that we it might be worded as to change from one legal on conforming use to another just for a portion of the property or something like that so it is somewhat complicated and this may not count for much to mr hamilton who's come today but if you were to start the hearing today and tried to work your way through all these complications, it's likely you're going to reach a point where it's just not resolvable and you'll have to continue the hearing to the next month anyway. Gentlemen, do you have anything to add? Mr. Hamilton, looks like our next meeting would be June 30th, and I realize that you've come down here and you've taken off work. And please feel free to come and approach if you would like. But it sounds from listening to the staff that if we were to have the hearing today, we would not even be able to come to necessarily a result that we would be able to possibly vote on today. Well, I'm sorry about that. But this is exactly what happened in the 60s with my grandparents. Postpone, postpone, junkyard. so i mean i we're here to talk about it these people are paid to do this every day let's do it you know i mean i i feel bad about and everything like that but uh you know i don't know if we can get these other people to come back my brother this other gentleman um i think we all go ahead and do it is there you think discussions with the applicant and you would be of use over the next month or five weeks to come to a point where you're i spoke to them on the telephone i was told that they were going to lease it out to a pull a pull apart on the telephone and then i found out later that they were going to run it their self then after that i didn't see no need in calling them you know when i went downtown to meet with the zoning people, I was under the assumption it was going to be leased out for five years to a pull apart. And then I found out that wasn't the case, that they were going to run it their self. Okay. So I know what it's like to deal with them the last 15 or 20 years. My property has been flooded. My family pet has been chewed up by their dogs. I've called the fire department 25 or 30 times over smoke, odor. Yeah, Mr. Hamilton, I understand all that. I think at this point, I mean, more likely I feel the board is probably going to grant a postponement until next month. I hope that you're able to come back. If you're not able to come back, what I would recommend is for you to submit your objections in writing to Mr. Marks and the staff. And they will bring them to our attention. They will be put on the record next month. But my guess is I'm willing to support today a postponement given the staff's recommendation. Sir, will one month be enough? I'm presuming it will be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Just for the record, we'd also like to state that, Mr. Hamilton, if you would, after this, we could meet with him outside chambers and begin a discussion to make him feel better and understand what we're actually doing to let him know that we want to adhere to the conditions that are not only in here but could possibly be talked about in the next 30 days. And we have no intention, actually, of postponing it any further than this. This is obviously a clerical error and a clarity error on my part. I apologize for that, Mr. Hamilton. So I just wanted to state that. So we would love to have that discussion with him as well and work with the neighbors and the neighborhood. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions? Mr. Chair, I move we postpone 17-26 Coen Brothers' appeal for the next meeting. So I have a motion by Mr. Glover to postpone to our June 30th meeting, and I have a second. Second. Mr. Needham seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. The motion carries. We'll hear this matter next month. Okay. Any other postponements or withdrawals? All right. Is this on the Fairhaven? Yes, sir. BOA 170023. You know it's bad when I actually just see you and I know which case it is. Well, we'll make this as quick and painless as we can. We'd like to withdraw this. You withdraw this? Okay, this is PLNBOA 17-23 Fairhaven Baptist Church request for a conditional use permit to expand the existing church in the agricultural urban zone at 2265 Liberty Road. Is there anyone here, anyone else here on this matter? Well, then we have withdrawal. I don't think we even have to make a motion. Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you all for your time. I do note that PLN BOA 17-21 Newton's Attic LLC has been withdrawn. Is there anyone here for the matter regarding Newton's Attic LLC? Okay, that one has been withdrawn. Are there any other withdrawals, postponements that need to bring to our attention? Okay, perfect. Well, in that case, then, if anyone, if you would, number one, I forgot last month. If you have your cell phone, please turn it off during the hearing. And then if you plan to testify today, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay, so I will start back at the top with the first matter, which is PLN BOA 17-24 Weston Lions request for a variance to reduce the required setback of a six-foot tall fence to replace an existing four-foot fence in a side street yard in a single-family residential zone at 345 Dudley Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in opposition? Okay, sir, if you want to have a seat, I'll run through the whole cattle call, the whole agenda, and then you'll be the first one up on the docket. The next matter will be PLM BOA 17-31 Romney Road IGA Supermarkets. Request for a variance to reduce the minimum required front yard from 10 feet to 4.5 feet in a neighborhood business zone at 344 Romney Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is anyone here for this matter today? All right. So we'll have that one next. The next one is a conditional use appeal. And this one, the first one is PLN BOA 17-16, Emanuel Baptist Church's request to amend a conditional use permit to expand the on-site parking and a variance to reduce the minimum setback from 40 feet to 18 feet in a single-family residential zone at 3100 Tates Creek Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition? Thank you, ma'am. So we'll have that one, and this will be one that I have recused myself in the past, and I will do that again. So you will be first on the agenda after we make it through the uncontested items, Which brings us to PLN BOA 17-27, William Crank. Request for a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge in order to allow the applicant to serve beer by the glass in a bicycle shop in a neighborhood business zone at 439 Southland Drive. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone that wants to speak to this matter today? Okay. We'll have that one on as unopposed. Lastly, we have PLM BOA 17-28, Rodney D. and Sean McMullen, an administrative appeal to determine that applying eyelash extensions in a permissible home occupation is not equivalent to a beauty parlor and a conditional use permit for a home occupation, which would be the application of the eyelash extensions in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 211 Patchen Lake Lane. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Is there anyone? Thank you, sir. So we'll have that one. Is there any reason for you gentlemen to talk in the hallway to see if you can resolve your issues? Okay. Then I won't make you. Okay. So, and once again, on the Emmanuel Baptist Church, is there any, should you guys be able to work out your issues in the hallway before we call you? Actually, I don't think we have any issues. Oh, okay. She just wants to listen and make sure brain is just going to be taken care of. then I will put you guys then on the uncontested items. So, which brings us back to the first item on the agenda, which is PLN BOA 17-24 Weston Lions request for a variance to reduce the required setback to a six-foot-tall fence in a side street yard at 345 Deadly Road. The applicant, please approach the podium and state your name for the record. Weston Lions. Okay. I note that the staff has recommended approval, and they have three conditions to that approval. Have you read those conditions? I have. Are you agreeable to those conditions? Of course. Okay. So does the board have any questions for the applicant? I may have questions for the applicant, but I think I want to ask staff questions first. So I think I understand the application, and I've been by and visited the site, But I have some technical questions, really, that probably are more addressed by staff. But if staff can't answer the facts, then we'll ask you. Would it be helpful to have this on the board here? You know, that's a, what do you call that view? That's a plan view. It's a plan view rather than elevation. and my questions refer more to the elevation view than the plan view. I have a photo that I can put up. Yeah, and I've got photos too, but I just pulled off Google Earth and also drove by. If you don't mind putting up a photo so I could. Well, Mr. Lyons, maybe I can ask you while you're standing there from this photo. There is a retaining wall that separates the elevation of your yard from the elevation of the sidewalk. Is that a fair statement? Yes, sir. How tall is that retaining wall? I'd say three feet, about three feet. About three feet. And is there a difference between the height of the retaining wall and the height of your backyard? No, that's about it. About the same elevation, okay. And was that there when you bought the house? Yes, sir. Okay. So that leads me to questions of staff, really. and the purpose of a fence. I understand that fences make good neighbors and all that, but the purpose of a privacy fence is basically to protect the homeowner's privacy, and I understand that request. the privacy to be protected from would be for somebody driving by or walking by to be able to view unobstructed into the backyard. But a four-foot fence and a three-foot retaining wall gives a total of seven feet from the perspective of the passerby. So I'm curious about that. Okay. I guess one thing to take into consideration is that a six-foot fence would be permissible with the further setback. So we're looking at the six-foot tall fence anyway, but this option gives Mr. Lyons a bit more yard space, essentially. The character of the neighborhood, there are several other fences, some of which are set back as they should be that are six feet tall. The immediate neighbor, if you went out there, you probably saw their fence. They have a similar situation with the retaining wall and a six-foot fence. So there is some precedent. And Mr. Lyons has the addition of all of this lovely landscaping here. I don't know if that answers or not. I am sympathetic to that. And I understand there is another side of the fence as well. So on the yard side of your four-foot fence, you only have basically four feet of privacy from the yard side. So I understand the argument's made either way. So, staff, you're answering my questions from a technical question. If we were not to grant this application for variance today, then if he wanted to build a six-foot fence, he would have to back it up into his yard, how much farther? The property line, I believe, is somewhere in the middle of the retaining wall. Is that right? It's actually right six inches off of the existing fence. So it would be two and a half feet further back? Two and a half from that, exactly. Into his yard. Further back into the yard? Yes. How much farther back into the yard from where the fence is now? Two and a half feet. Two and a half feet. Okay. It's a tricky setup for sure. No, I understand it. Yeah. Okay. So it would need to be two and a half feet further from where its current location is to be in compliance? Yes. And I would point out too, even though we're currently with the retaining wall and with the fence, it's seven feet, but since the retaining wall is essentially with the same elevation as the backyard, it's still only four feet. Yeah, from the backyard. Yeah, from the backyard. From passersby, it's a seven-foot fence. From people in the backyard, it's a four-foot fence. Yeah, I understand that. Sure. May I comment on that, please, sir? Mr. Lyons, why do you need a six-foot-tall fence? Why are you substituting? Well, mainly that one's a little bit dilapidated. It's falling apart. The paint's chipping. It just wasn't really well done. and also from the surrounding neighbors, they're also elevated property, so they can see right in our backyard. Okay. That helps. Well, let me just say, if all these questions, I've seen the property, and I don't see any problem with it. And I think, to be honest, to move that fence at any point would, I think, drastically disturb the look of the house and the yard and the retaining wall, I think it's most appropriate, and I would approve it if we have such a motion. Thank you. Any other questions? So just so I'm clear, we have a – this is the backyard fence. Now, coming around the front of the house, at least on my map, I don't even see a fence, but maybe I'm looking at a dated photo. There's no fence at the front of the house. There's no fence in the front, so this is only in the rear of the house. Yeah, then I would lean towards approving this as well. Thank you. Ms. Myers, do you have anything? I agree with Mr. Needham and Mr. Clark. All right. In that case, the Chair will entertain a motion. I will move approval for BOA 17-24, Weston Lyons, requesting a variance to reduce the required setback of a six-foot tall fence to replace the existing four-foot fence in a side yard on a single-family resident with the recommendations and conditions that staff have indicated. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. I have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. So it passes. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. Thanks so much. The next item on the docket is PLM BOA 17-31 Romney Road IGA Supermarkets. Supermarkets, request for a variance to reduce the minimum required front yard from 10 feet to 4.5 feet in an airboat business zone at 344 Romney Road. Please introduce yourself for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. And have you had an opportunity to review the staff's report? Yes, sir, I have. And has your client agreed to the recommendations of staff? They do. Is anyone here in opposition of this motion? I mean, I'm sorry, of this application? Hearing none, I would open up the discussions to the board. All right, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA 17, I'm sorry, dash 17 dash 31 Romney Road IGA Supermarket's request for variance to reduce the minimum required front yard from 10 feet to 4.5 feet in a neighborhood business B1 zone at 344 Romney Road, based on staff's recommendations and reasons and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. So I have a first by Mr. Needham, a second by Mr. Clark. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? None were opposed. Thank you, sir. Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. Okay, the next one I have is a conditional use appeal for the Emanuel Baptist Church. I will recuse myself and hand over the gavel to Mr. Glover for this portion of the hearing. Okay. How are you? How are you? Good. Identify yourself, if you would. Greg Thornton for Emanuel Baptist Church. We've forgotten from last month, Greg, who you are, so just for the record, thank you. What's changed? Well, a lot. You want me to go through the proposal? Sure. I'll do that. We have a copy of the PowerPoint for each member of the board. I also have a couple of letters of support here. I'll hand off to you guys real quick. Thank you. Thank you. The emails we're reviewing are pretty short, so I'm going to assume that unless the members tell me that we've reviewed them and let you get on with your PowerPoint. Go ahead. Sounds good. Sounds good. I just wanted to go through briefly, if I could, a little bit of the history and talk to you about the parking at Emanuel. This is a Google Earth image from 1993. And you'll see that in 1993, actually I think this photograph was taken probably on a Sunday morning, because you'll see the lot at Emanuel Centenary and also at Tate's Creek Christian are all full. the parking at emmanuel today is pretty much the same as it was in 1993 with one exception and in about 2000 2001 there was 83 spots added in the front of the property which would be in this area right out here for our benefit you might have to point to that one this little lot right here in the front was added in in the early 2000s which added 83 spots now in the proposals we're going to look at today we've gone back and corrected and made some changes that were requested last month to add some green space or keep some green space and also to make the use of the property back in the south east corner which is back here where you see the baseball field less less intense or less intrusive on the neighbors and on the adjoining property owners and by the way those neighbors have all signed emails or letters of support which i'll get to in a minute You'll see this area over here in the northeast corner, which is going to be the most intense use we're suggesting today or requesting. And that area back before 2002. Where's the northeast corner? That would be the area that looks like a patch of dark. I'm looking at this one because we're only at it in this direction, so thanks. Okay. That's where we're going to request the most intense use today. And before 2002, this area was very steep. It was an area that was mostly rock, and folks were dumping topsoil there to allow the church to fill that in and to create a more level surface. That didn't really happen until this building was added in about 2003, and the dirt from that was then taken over to this area right here to allow that to be more level. So that's the area we're going to request the most intense use today. This is all caused because the attendance has grown. Last year, the attendance averaged 2,800. Back when this first photograph was shown, the attendance was running about 1,000 per Sunday. So we've gone from 1,000 to 2,800 with only adding 83 parking spots. And apparently parking has been a longtime problem at Emanuel because this first photograph here was taken in the 1960s after the property was first built and you can see they were parking on the grass in the 1960s the next photograph was taken this spring and you can see in various places where we're going to be suggesting asphalt parking there's already cars parking there already now on the grass in 2016 the average number of cars on the grass was 150 per sunday through the first four months of 2017 that number is 180 per sunday parking on the grass this also includes off-site parking at a bank down in lansdowne where folks are either carpooling in or walking up the street to get there so we're doing things to try to ease the parking there was actually a committee appointed by the church last year to look at ways to do this we have two services so it's already split those are at nine o'clock and 11 30 to give time for the folks that are there at nine o'clock to leave and the folks that are coming at 11 30 to have extra parking spots but there's a lot of things going on for college students preschoolers and children during the same time which adds to the use of the building so i know we talked about the number of seats in the sanctuary or in the the auditorium and the minimum number of parking spots required but that really doesn't address the use of the property because there's so many other areas of the building being used at the same time that that that auditorium is full this is just a few photographs for you to see what they're doing to park cars on a sunday morning in some of these areas they're putting up cones every sunday and marking lanes and being able to do that these are the two areas over on the centenary side of the building and you can see that after the after the parking that grass is very worn down and not left in a very good shape right now This is the ball field, which is back in the corner that we talked about and we saw on the first map, that is back in the back in the southeast corner. That's already being used for parking also. Greg, if you don't mind, back up one slide. Let me ask you a question. Is that a view from looking across old Mount Tabor? No. That's a view from the church's property, which is the area where we're proposing the most intense asphalt paving back in that northeast corner. Right. looking across towards the Greek Orthodox Church. Okay, thanks. And that the building there that you see right here is the subway and the all-state entrance. Gotcha, thanks. This is the first plan we brought in it and if you remember we withdrew a portion of this plan the first time we came. This the church feels like they probably need 200 spots as a minimum since they're running about a 180 currently in the grass. The first plan that we brought we withdrew the day we got here because we realized the neighbors on the other side of Tates Creek Road were going to object to it. That was when we were requesting I think 80 or 90 spots in that lot across Tates Creek Road between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Presbyterian Church. We withdrew that request and requested time back in March to meet with the neighbors on Monta Vesta about the plan and the the design of the lot back in that corner, which Mr. Clark was concerned about last time. We met with those neighbors. Mr. Farmer was there as the councilman from that district, and we had worked out changes that they were satisfied with at the April meeting. We've gone back, though, and made other changes today, which is part of the next plan we will submit. This was plan two that the neighbors were okay with, but it left in a very intense use of the parking up here by Subway and Allstate. We've gone back and tried to preserve some green space and still get the church to that minimum 200 spots, and that's what we're presenting today. We're going to call this our Plan 3 because it's the third one we've submitted and the staff has approved. But this one, as you'll see, Plan 3 gives us 192 new parking spaces. With the church feeling like they need 200, that's about as good as we can get without taking up more green space or doing some other changes. It's a lot further away from the lot line back here in the southeast corner, which you were concerned about. Those neighbors have looked at this plan. They've submitted e-mails. we also have a letter from doug mcswain and that neighborhood association saying that they support this plan and they're okay with it we reached some other agreements with them with regards to this tree line right here a couple of them wanted it to stay exactly like it was another one wanted to be able to go in 10 feet onto our property cut out some of the trees so we're going to let them do that and we've got a letter submitted that's part of this record that memorializes that So this would take us to 937, or I'm sorry, 900, yes, 937 spots on the property. Currently based on the 180 average per week parking in the grass and the 745 spots, the church right now needs 925, so that gives us growth of 12 spots with the current proposal. i just wanted to kind of run through this because when we left last time i was trying to figure out you know i don't do much of this stuff i'm more of litigation so i was trying to figure out where is this requirement on green space so i looked at the zoning regs and i was trying to figure out where it was to see what's our minimum number we have to have or percentage i really couldn't find anything so i looked at the contiguous property and centenaries contiguous it's it's pretty much much it's pretty much asphalt i looked at tates creek christian which is on the other side and it's pretty much asphalt i don't see much green space the greek orthodox church and the use of their property doesn't have much green space nor does the speedway subway and all state so it looks like the emmanuel property has more green space than the contiguous neighbors so i don't think approving this would be detrimental to our property or that property we've submitted some letters of recommendation on this this is from centenaries church supporting the request and then i also submitted for you the the letter and the agreement we have with mr mcswain which includes i think there were three of his neighbors present there the kassini acts and and i think mr procoro was there who also represents that neighborhood association and he's also submitted an email so i think that's all i have unless there are any questions oh i will add that we did look at the grass pavers that we discussed the last time that was not really feasible for the church because of cost because of the size of the project it was also not feasible because of winter use or the intensity of the use it appeared that those were not going to hold up under traffic they weren't going to be able to be graded in the snow so asphalt was the best use and the best to allow the church to use this the way they need to okay does board have any questions for mr thornton about the application about the powerpoint about the change in the proposals from last month I'd like to ask about you said that there was some removal of brush or trees talk to me about that would you please sir let me see if I can go back to the powerpoint and I'll try to show it to you the best I can on one of these images I think this one may show it better right here in this area Mr. McSwain is getting ready to regrade his backyard, and he wants to be able to create some terraces in the backyard, possibly, and he asked that he would have the ability to go back. The growth has gone out past where the old line fence was when the church bought the property in 59 onto his property. Mr. Kseniak keeps his trim back. Mr. McSwain is now asking if we would care if he went 10 feet beyond our property line to cut out some of the smaller trees that are in there to thin it out a little bit. And we've given him permission to do that. I think he would like to remove some honeysuckles that are in there. I was going to ask if it's non-invasive. It is invasive. It's not a plant that's natural to that area. The neighbors want to leave theirs in. He wants to take it out, and he wants to take it out on our property also. So actually what we agreed to was to allow him to come onto our property to remove some of the trees. Good. Thank you. I should say this, I think this is a far better plan, it looks like to me, that you've taken into consideration some of the water quality issues and the neighbors. I appreciate that. Thank you. The only request we would make is the church would like to pay cash for this, so they would like to raise the money. And I've talked to staff about this. They would like to request a three-year, up to three years to complete this, so it would be an extension on the permit. I think it's by two years. Is that right? Is it normally one year? It's one year to initiate some activity. It's not a one-year window to complete, so we're fine with the three-year window. I'm resolved. I'm in favor. Jim, I didn't hear your full answer. We don't have a completion requirement, or is there? No, there's no completion requirement. You're supposed to initiate some activity, and it doesn't even have to be construction. It could be detailed planning, some sort of a step you've taken. So since there's no requirement, there wouldn't be any need for adding a condition? I don't think so. The requirement to start is ordinance-based anyway, right? I think Tracy can talk about it. Tracy Jones can talk if needed, but I think as long as it's part of the record that you all are. And quite frankly, I'm not too concerned about that because you all were in a hurry last month because you're killing grass by parking cars on it. So I'm not worried about your delaying implementing the plan. But, Tracy, if you want to weigh in, you're certainly welcome. I think all the ordinance requires is some type of step of progressing towards, you know, whatever it is you ask for in your application. So they're probably going to get that within the first year or so. I don't, you know, unless there's some reason they think that they're not going to take any steps to progress towards getting this parking lot in place. I don't know that we don't go back out there and see if it's completed or not. We just look and see if they're moving forward with whatever is granted to them. Mr. Thornton, are you going to move forward within a year of this if we grant approval? I think we're going to go ahead with preparation of the plans immediately. Okay. If that's what's required, I'm not worried about doing that even within the year, as long as there's not a completion deadline. Fair enough. Any more questions of this applicant? Any questions of staff on this application? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. I saw you standing there. Come on up and identify yourself, if you would. My name is Susan Wedding. I own the property where the Allstate and the subway is. and I just want to be sure that go on record that any water drainage that will be altered will be taken care of. It will not impact my building. If there is an improvement on the soccer field up there that they want to leave green, that water also will be dealt with and it will not cause water to get on my property. Have you seen the revised findings and conditions for approval that are before us? Last time you had that, that was in here. There is a requirement. In fact, it's a condition of approval that a water management plan, it's condition number three, that an updated stormwater management plan be implemented. And that has to be approved, it has to be adopted according to the engineering manuals and accepted by the Division of Engineering. So that being said. It takes care of it. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Ms. Wedding, any other comments from the audience, staff, members, the board? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve the plan of BOA 17-16 of Emanuel Baptist Church, requesting an amended conditional use permit to expand the on-site parking and a variance to reduce the minimum setback. Well, so we're not – that's not part of it. Yeah, I will note that the variance is no longer required. Right. Okay. So I'll stop right there with – but subject to the conditions that the staff has created and also based on Plan 3 as submitted. You guys also need to ask the applicant to accept the conditions as written. Yes. Mr. Thorne. Yes, we accept those conditions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I hear a second? I second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? No opposition? Good luck with your project. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Never mind. Mr. Simpson is next. I'm not next in the sense of my case being heard, but I represent an item on the last page, Rodney and Sean McMullen, Plan 170028. I've been talking with Rob Ryan, who represents the Homeowners Association, discussing with them about the opportunity to meet with them and review some issues. And we would like to request a 30-day postponement until the June 30th meeting. And if we can't get those matters resolved, I'll probably be coming back before the board earlier, but we want to try to do what we can to work things out with the HOA before the next meeting. So I'd like to ask the board for a continuance to the June 30th meeting. I appreciate that. And Mr. Ryan, I'm assuming you're in agreement. Staff, any comments? Fellow board members, any comments? Mr. Chair, I move we postpone 17-28 until the next meeting. Do I have a second? Second. So I have a first and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll see you next month. So I'm calling Case PLN BOA 17-27 William Crank's request for a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge in order to allow the applicant to serve beer by the glass in a bicycle shop in a neighborhood business zone at 439 Southland Drive. The staff has recommended approval. Mr. Ellinger, would you put yourself on the record formally? Yes, sir. Chuck Ellinger, 1823, Nicholas Field Road, here for the applicant, William Crank. Thank you. And has your client read the staff's report? He has. And we agree we do have, we would like a clarification on number two, though, where it says any signage. And that would be the one area I think we'd like to have a little discussion on, if we could. Okay. I think that will work. Mr. Marks. My understanding is they might want to put some window signage in that may at least have a logo or some reference to something. We're agreeable to modifying condition number two, which says any signage, if we could just perrin after that, other than window signs. What I was looking for, maybe just say no exterior signage and just put the word exterior. How about stand-alone signs? Would that satisfy either one of you? Well, I think the issue, let me take a step back. What signs does the staff not want on the establishment? Let's start there. We have a picture if you'd like to see what the building looks like. If we could put that up there, you can see. we're not going to put, as you see the marquee up there, we're not going to put anything on the building that's going to have cocktail lounge or anything that's going to have that reference. But if we have maybe a vendor like West 6 Brewery that wanted to put a logo or something on, we thought that we'd like to have that opportunity. Well, I think, and having occasionally gone to a bar once or twice in my life, is the staff concerned about like the neon signs that say beer or i mean i'm not sure what the rule this is this is an accessory to the bike shop they don't plan on operating as a cocktail lounge really it's just something where they would be serving beer by the glass to their current customers we don't feel that a signage advertising that their place that sells alcoholic beverages is necessarily truly reflective of what they're doing or appropriate. I think that we are definitely agreeable to some sort of window signage. I think what I had talked to the applicant about was like a West 6 logo in the window that faced in and outward. Something like that I think we're agreeable to. But just anything marketing the establishment as more of a bar when that use is so accessory to. We don't want to be marketing it as a bar. That's not our – So I see – I'm sorry. I see some more signage that for third-party vendors. Is that what we're looking at here rather than cranks, beer, and lounge? Right. I think that, yeah, they're just asking for, like they said, a logo sign or something like that. I was going to say I think you could limit it to the window, interior mounted maybe. And that's why I said we won't put anything exterior, and that's why I thought if we had exterior, then that would make it clean. Could we put the language up on the screen of the amended second condition? Yeah, that's going to be the tough part is how to phrase what we seem to be in agreement with. but putting it in language we can put in the record might be tricky. So wordsmithing might be helpful. I think we can just add one word before signage, the word exterior. That was the original idea, which we've come around to might be fine. So trying to keep this as simple as possible. So it should not include any exterior sign. I think it would be any exterior signage for the bicycle shop shall not include any reference. Is that what we're looking at? Correct. Yeah. Well, Chuck, I don't want to advocate on behalf of you or your client, but if you wanted to put a vendor's logo or whatever on that awning, you did mention that, didn't you? That's not going to be something we're going to do. We're not going to change the way that the appearance on the outside where the awning is. It might be on the inside of the glass, maybe, but that would be the only time that we would have any kind of advertising. Then I agree with Mr. Mark's suggestion, adding one word, exterior, after any and before signage and number two would work. And with those changes, Mr. Ellinger, your client, accepts the rest of the recs. Mr. Chair. I have some recommendations. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, because I like both bicycles and beer, I move that we approve 17-27 William Crank's request for a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge allowing the applicant to serve beer by the glass in a bicycle shop in a neighborhood business zone at 439 Southland Drive for the reasons that we've discussed, recommended by staff, subject to the six conditions, including the altered condition number two. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? I'll second because I too like bicycles. Okay, we have a motion on the floor for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, none. Thank you. And let me ask a couple more questions now that we have this approved. What's the time frame? Oh, Mr. Crank, come on up and introduce yourself for the record. Hi. William Crank. Go by Bill Crank. Once we get this addressed, we have to do 30-day newspaper notice of our intention, and then it's 60 days ABC malt beverage license, so approximately 90 days. Well, good. Well, I look forward to coming by. Yeah, please. Thank you. Good luck, guys. Appreciate it. Okay. I believe that is all our matters we have on the agenda. There are a couple things we need to do for cleanup. Number one, we did not approve the minutes, Mr. Glover, since you weren't in yet. I wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to recommend any changes that were necessary. And I appreciate that since I was not a party to all of the meeting last month, I had to recuse on one item. I cannot move to approve the minutes. But I won't object if somebody else does. I move we approve the minutes from the April 28th meeting. Thank you. Do I have a second? I have a second for Mr. Clark. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you. Then the next item I wanted to ask about is to Mr. Marks. We were sent your recommendation for a revocation of a conditional use 2015-57 Dr. Andrew P. Schroer and Charles Weishroer at 1096 Wellington Way. I believe the board all received the reports by email, and I wanted to see is the appropriate procedure for us to have a discussion and then decide whether or not to take up this matter at our next hearing. Ms. Jones? I think the way that your ordinance is written, that you all have the opportunity to review what's sent to you. You can ask Mr. Marks if you have any questions about that, and then you can vote to schedule a revocation hearing if you choose to do so. Okay. In connection with that, Ms. Jones, does our discussion have to include an invitation to the applicant who has the conditional use or not? Your discussion does not, but that's why if you choose to schedule one, then it will go through a notice process for the next meeting or whenever you schedule it. Sure. Because then you'll be having the full-blown hearing, so they'll have the opportunity to bring anything to your attention that they should want to. Okay. Well, in that case, since we can have a discussion, I guess, Mr. Marks, would you mind just giving us a very brief update? Whether you've been contacted from them or what the status is, and then we can have a brief discussion on it. The issue is that they're providing what they advertise clearly as doggy daycare, which is clearly not a service that was approved as part of the conditional use. Back in 2015, they were approved as an animal clinic, so they can, of course, board animals that are there for medical treatment. but just a standalone bringing people's pets, in this case mostly dogs, in for boarding during the day that are not receiving any medical treatment. That's just not part of what was approved. We have gotten a lot of neighborhood complaints about that activity, mainly because of the noise generated from the dogs barking. So we've tried very hard to convince them they just need to stop that, and they haven't. so we're hoping that if you schedule a revocation hearing, that will be a wake-up call to them that they really need to stop the boarding. So there is a sign that is advertising doggy daycare. There was for a time a sign advertising doggy daycare. They have removed that. Their Internet site advertised doggy daycare. They've removed that, But when you call kind of anonymously to ask about boarding, they are still providing that service. Have you had discussions with them by phone? Yes, we've gone the extra mile with getting them the documents to show them why they can't have a stand-alone kennel is what it's called. And just so you understand the seriousness of this, in a P1 zone, a professional office P1 zone, a kennel, which includes dog boarding, is actually a prohibited use. So this is a pretty serious concern. My recollection, I know we've approved several veterinary services over the last couple of years since I've been on the board. But my recollection at this hearing was that it was discussed that they would not be doing this type of operation at this site. Correct. Jim, what are the specific differences between a kennel and a veterinary clinic? What can you not do in a clinic that you can do in a kennel? A kennel would not provide medical services. It would just be a place to board or to raise dogs for sale, for any commercial purpose, basically boarding or having dogs or other pets for sale. Excuse me, Mr. Marks. It seems like to me that the language in the approval is very clear, that they cannot board animals. And if they are just ignoring that, then they obviously need to have some accountability, a revocation hearing or whatever. But if they're ignoring that, then I think it's a fairly serious matter. Have you had face-to-face conversations with them? We've actually had two different enforcement officers working that case, and I think one of the other of them probably has. I know that most recently the enforcement officer had extensive communication with Dr. Schroyer. I don't know that it was face-to-face, but providing him all the documents, the same ones that you got. Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry I didn't bring your letter with me. What's the number for the 15-57? C-2015-57. Thanks. Any other questions for staff or any discussion by the board? Like I said, I do not believe that a boarding kennel would have been approved in this area given its proximity to a residential neighborhood. So I would entertain a motion to set a revocation hearing. and as we discussed from two months ago, the staff would then send out a notice letter technically underneath our ordinance. There's only a seven-day requirement for notice, but in this instance it would be five weeks, which would be plenty of time for them to have notification and obtain counsel if they decide. And so with that being said, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we set a revocation hearing for our next meeting, which would be June 30, 2017, for the conditional use that was C-2015-57 for Andrew P. Schroyer and Charles C. Y. Schroyer at 1096 Wellington Way. in a P-1 zone that we scheduled. And June 30th would be the schedule? Yes. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Clark. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. So that motion carries. I think that brings us to any, I don't have any items for the board. Does the board have any items they want to address? Okay. Does the staff have any items they want to address? All right. So our next meeting is going to be set for June 30, 2017, and I would like to say that my badge streak of 7 p.m. appears to be finally over. So thank you all very much for cooperating, and I'll see everyone next month. Thank you.