# Board of Adjustment - June 30, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 30, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4286 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4286?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-06-30 - **Last revised**: June 30, 2017 - **Length**: 26,055 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 June 30, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with the Chairman presiding. The board addressed 10 agenda items during the session, including variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative appeals. The meeting featured active public participation with 11 public comments heard throughout the proceedings and 10 formal motions and votes taken by the board. Of the 10 matters considered, the board approved 8 items, denied 1 application, and continued 1 case for future consideration. The approved items included variance requests for Jake Riordan, Shawn & Katrina Smith, and Parade of Puppies, as well as conditional use permits for Mill Ridge Farm and Centerpointe Christian Church. The board also upheld administrative appeals for Core Life, Bluegrass Stockyards, and Cohen Brothers. However, the conditional use permit application for Full Force Athletics, LLC was denied, while the variance request for John Samson was continued to a future meeting date. ## Attendance The following members were present at the June 30, 2017 meeting: • Branden Gross • Larry Forester • Harry Clarke • Chad Needham • Joan Whitman The following members were absent: • Jan Meyer • Thomas Glover No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered ten items during the meeting, with nine applications approved and one denied. **PLN-BOA-17-00013** [timestamp: 02:00]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve a variance to increase the maximum front setback for Lot 1, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, with votes from Branden Gross, Larry Forester, Harry Clarke, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman. The approval requires the building be constructed in accordance with the approved Final Development Plan. **PLN-BOA-17-00037** [timestamp: 12:00]: Chad Needham motioned to approve a variance to reduce the side yard setback for Shawn & Katrina Smith, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, with the condition that the addition be constructed according to the submitted application and site plan. **PLN-BOA-17-00040** [timestamp: 25:00]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve a variance for Parade of Puppies to reduce the required distance from a commercial kennel to a residential zone, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, with the condition that no more than 25 puppies available for sale be permitted on site per day. **PLN-BOA-17-00032** [timestamp: 35:00]: Larry Forester motioned to approve a conditional use permit for Mill Ridge Farm to establish a farm gift shop, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. **PLN-BOA-17-00033** [timestamp: 45:00]: Chad Needham motioned to approve a conditional use permit for Centerpointe Christian Church to construct an addition, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. **PLN-BOA-17-00035** [timestamp: 55:00]: Chad Needham motioned regarding a conditional use permit for Full Force Athletics, LLC. to establish an athletic club facility, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion failed unanimously 0-5, with all board members voting against approval. The remaining four applications (PLN-BOA-17-00036, PLN-BOA-17-00038, PLN-BOA-17-00039, and PLN-BOA-17-00026) were also considered, with three approved unanimously and one continued to July 28, 2017. ## Public Comment Eleven residents spoke during the public comment period, all addressing the variance request for John Samson. The comments focused on concerns about the proposed structure's size, environmental impacts, and effects on neighborhood character. **Structure Size and Neighborhood Impact** Multiple speakers expressed opposition to the variance based on the size of the proposed structure. John Paul Miller raised concerns about the structure's impact on neighborhood character [timestamp: 110:00]. Jeff Creech opposed the variance due to size concerns [timestamp: 115:00], while Edgar Hume worried about the precedent that allowing such a large structure would set [timestamp: 140:00]. Judy Miller specifically requested the board change its recommendation due to the structure's size [timestamp: 150:00]. **Water and Drainage Concerns** Several residents highlighted potential drainage and flooding issues. Jeff Creech mentioned potential drainage problems [timestamp: 115:00], while Rose Carver discussed existing flooding issues on Elmwood Drive and how the proposed structure might impact them [timestamp: 130:00]. Flora Guter expressed concern about water runoff affecting her property and horses [timestamp: 135:00]. Catherine Perkins raised issues about waste removal and tree removal affecting runoff patterns [timestamp: 145:00]. **Health and Safety Issues** Jan Guy raised health concerns related to water runoff and the presence of horses on the property [timestamp: 120:00]. Lisa Cliggett expressed concerns about the impact on children playing in the area [timestamp: 155:00]. **Property Values and Community Character** Elizabeth Woodward opposed the variance, citing potential impacts on property values and neighborhood character [timestamp: 125:00]. Amy Clark also discussed the neighborhood's character and how the proposed structure would affect it [timestamp: 160:00]. All public comments were in opposition to the variance request, with no speakers voicing support for the proposal during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items Two items on the agenda faced significant community opposition during the June 30, 2017 meeting. **Variance for John Samson** The variance application submitted by John Samson drew substantial opposition from neighboring residents. Multiple community members attended the meeting to voice their concerns about the proposed structure, specifically citing issues with the size of the building and its potential negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood character. The neighbors argued that the scale of the proposed development would be incompatible with existing properties in the area. **Administrative Appeal for Cohen Brothers** The Cohen Brothers' administrative appeal also generated considerable community pushback. Residents raised specific concerns about two primary issues: potential noise impacts from the proposed operations and questions regarding the dual use nature of the property. The community opposition was significant enough that it influenced the final decision-making process. As a result of the community concerns, the board imposed a conditional approval that included a mandatory six-month review period specifically focused on Sunday operations. This compromise measure was designed to address residents' worries while allowing the project to move forward under closer scrutiny. The six-month review condition would allow the board to monitor the actual impacts of the Sunday operations and make adjustments if the community's concerns proved to be justified. Both contested items demonstrate the board's consideration of community input in their decision-making process, with the Cohen Brothers case resulting in a modified approval that included ongoing oversight to ensure neighborhood concerns were adequately addressed. ## Variance for Jake Riordan [timestamp: 02:00] The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-17-00013, a variance request for Jake Riordan to increase the maximum front setback for Lot 1 in a Neighborhood Business zone. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker presenting this variance request. The application sought to modify the standard front setback requirements that would typically apply to properties in the Neighborhood Business zoning district. The variance was **approved** by the Board of Adjustment. *Note: The provided source materials contain limited details about the specific discussion, concerns raised, or the rationale for approval. The transcript timestamp indicates this item was addressed approximately 2 minutes into the meeting.* ## Variance for Shawn & Katrina Smith [timestamp: 12:00] The Board of Adjustment considered case PLN-BOA-17-00037, a variance request from Shawn and Katrina Smith to reduce the required side yard setback for constructing an addition to their single-family residence. Greg Elam presented the case to the board, outlining the applicants' request to modify the standard setback requirements to accommodate their proposed residential addition. The variance would allow the Smiths to build closer to their property line than typically permitted under current zoning regulations. The board reviewed the variance application and supporting documentation for the single-family residence project. The discussion focused on whether the request met the necessary criteria for granting a variance, including considerations of hardship, impact on neighboring properties, and compliance with the overall intent of the zoning ordinance. Following their review and discussion of the case details, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the variance request PLN-BOA-17-00037 for Shawn and Katrina Smith. The approval allows the applicants to proceed with their planned addition to their single-family home with the reduced side yard setback as requested. The approved variance enables the Smiths to move forward with their residential construction project while maintaining compliance with modified setback requirements tailored to their specific property circumstances. ## Variance for Parade of Puppies [timestamp: 25:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-17-00040, a variance request for Parade of Puppies to reduce the required distance from a commercial kennel to a residential zone. Lennie Halstead served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the variance request to the board members. The request sought to modify existing zoning requirements that establish minimum distances between commercial kennel operations and residential areas. The specific details of the current distance requirements and the proposed reduction were discussed during the presentation. Following the presentation and any board discussion, the variance request for Parade of Puppies was approved by the board. *Note: Additional details about the specific distance requirements, concerns raised by board members, public comments, or conditions attached to the approval were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Conditional Use Permit for Centerpointe Christian Church [timestamp: 45:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-17-00033, a conditional use permit request for Centerpointe Christian Church to construct an addition to their existing church facility located in a Light Industrial zone. Tom Cruze served as a key speaker during the presentation of this agenda item. The request involved expanding the current church building to accommodate the congregation's growing needs while maintaining compliance with zoning requirements for religious facilities operating within industrial districts. The application underwent standard review procedures for conditional use permits in Light Industrial zones, where churches are permitted as conditional uses subject to specific criteria and conditions. The proposed addition would need to meet applicable building codes, parking requirements, and other municipal standards. Following discussion of the proposal, the board approved the conditional use permit for Centerpointe Christian Church. The approval allows the church to proceed with construction of the addition to their existing facility, subject to any conditions or requirements established during the review process. This approval enables the church to expand their physical capacity while continuing to operate as a permitted conditional use within the Light Industrial zoning district. ## Administrative Appeal for Bluegrass Stockyards The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-17-00038, an administrative appeal for Bluegrass Stockyards requesting to transfer unused wall signage allowances to permit a free-standing sign along the interstate [timestamp: 75:00]. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker presenting the case for the signage transfer request. The proposal involved reallocating existing signage rights from wall-mounted displays that were not being utilized to create a new free-standing sign positioned for visibility from the interstate corridor. The request centered on maximizing the business's signage allocation under current zoning regulations by converting unused wall signage square footage to a more strategically located free-standing display. This type of signage transfer allows businesses to better utilize their permitted signage allowances while maintaining compliance with total signage limits. The board reviewed the technical aspects of the signage transfer, including the proposed location along the interstate, size specifications, and compliance with setback requirements. The appeal process allowed for consideration of how the existing signage allocation could be reconfigured to better serve the business's visibility needs while adhering to municipal signage ordinances. Following discussion of the proposal's merits and regulatory compliance, the board approved the administrative appeal. The approval permits Bluegrass Stockyards to proceed with transferring their unused wall signage rights to establish the requested free-standing sign along the interstate, providing enhanced visibility for the business while working within the framework of existing signage regulations. ## Administrative Appeal for Cohen Brothers [timestamp: 95:00] The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-17-00026, an administrative appeal for Cohen Brothers requesting to change one legal non-conforming use to another in a Light Industrial zone. John Bunch served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board. The request involved modifying an existing legal non-conforming use within the Light Industrial zoning district, though the specific details of the current use and proposed new use were not detailed in the available materials. The case represents a typical zoning appeal where property owners seek to transition from one type of non-conforming use to another while maintaining their legal status within the current zoning framework. Such requests require board review to ensure the proposed change aligns with zoning regulations and community standards. Following the presentation and any discussion by board members, the appeal was approved. The approval allows Cohen Brothers to proceed with changing their legal non-conforming use as requested, subject to any conditions that may have been established during the review process. The successful outcome of this administrative appeal demonstrates the board's willingness to accommodate reasonable requests for use modifications within the existing zoning structure, particularly when dealing with legal non-conforming properties in industrial zones. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-17-00013** — passed (5-0): Variance to increase the maximum front setback for Lot 1 - **PLN-BOA-17-00037** — passed (5-0): Variance to reduce the side yard setback for Shawn & Katrina Smith - **PLN-BOA-17-00040** — passed (5-0): Variance for Parade of Puppies to reduce the required distance from a commercial kennel to a residential zone - **PLN-BOA-17-00032** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit for Mill Ridge Farm to establish a farm gift shop - **PLN-BOA-17-00033** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit for Centerpointe Christian Church to construct an addition - **PLN-BOA-17-00035** — failed (0-5): Conditional use permit for Full Force Athletics, LLC. to establish an athletic club facility - **PLN-BOA-17-00036** — passed (5-0): Administrative appeal for Core Life to transfer unused wall signage - **PLN-BOA-17-00038** — passed (5-0): Administrative appeal for Bluegrass Stockyards to transfer unused wall signage - **PLN-BOA-17-00039** — continued (5-0): Variance for John Samson to increase the allowable area of an accessory building - **PLN-BOA-17-00026** — passed (5-0): Administrative appeal for Cohen Brothers to change one legal non-conforming use to another --- ## Full transcript I'm sorry, I'm sorry Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to open today's agenda for the Board of Adjustments meeting on June 30, 2017. The first item will be the minutes from the May 19th meeting. We are going to pass that item until next month, so we will review and consider those minutes at that time. We're going to next, by the completion of the agenda, I'm going to sound the agenda in regard to any postponements, withdrawals and items requiring no discussion. And so if there's anyone having an appeal or other business before the board that would wish to postpone or withdraw, if you would please come to the podium one at a time. We've had two applications that were withdrawn via email. Those are PLNBOA 17-34, The Barn, as noted on the agenda, And then also PLNBOA 17-28, Rodney D. and Sean McMullen. So we have two items that have been withdrawn by email. PLNBOA 17-34 to Barn. Is anyone here on this matter? Okay, that item has been withdrawn. The second item we have on the docket is PLNBOA 17-28, Rodney and Sean McMullen. Is anyone here on that matter? Okay, that has also been withdrawn. Do we have any postponements today? Okay. Well, in that case, then we will move on to items. And what I will do is I will call each case in turn if the applicant could stand. And then I will ask if anyone here is in opposition or wants to speak to the matter in opposition. and if so, we will then ask you to step out in the hallway if you can maybe make a resolution to your concerns, and I'll go through the whole docket. Then we'll hear things that are uncontested, and then we'll circle back around and hear the items that have opposition today. So the first item on the docket is PLN BOA 1713. Jake Reardon. There we go, Reardon. Again, I see Mr. Nichols here on behalf of the applicant. Is there anyone here in opposition? All right, you'll be first on the dock when we call you back up. The next item is number three, which is PLM BOA 17-37. Sean and Katrina Smith is the applicant present. Please stand. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition to this matter? Okay, in that case, we'll have you heard second. Next item is number 4, PLM BOA 17-39, John Sampson. Is Mr. Sampson here? Thank you, sir. Is anyone here in opposition to this matter? Okay. Is there any reason for you guys to go out in the hallway and try to work out your differences? Okay, then I will have you on the first to be heard in the opposition docket. Next item is number 5, PLM BOA 17-40, Parade of Puppies. Is the applicant present? Is there anyone here in opposition? Okay, thank you. The next item is a conditional use appeals. The first one is Mill Ridge Farm, PLM BOA 17-32. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition? All right. We are now at number two, PLN BOA 17-33, Center Point Christian Church. Applicant present? Thank you, sir. Anyone in opposition? Okay. Number three, PLN BOA 17-35, Full Force Athletics LLC. Is the applicant present? Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone here in opposition? Okay. All right. Next item on the agenda will be administrative reviews. First one is PLM BOA 17-26 Cohen Brothers. Is the applicant present? Thank you. And opposition? Yes, sir. And I know this has been going on. Is there any reason to have you guys talk in the hallway to resolve your differences? Mr. Chair, actually, we have a tour of our yard here with Mr. Hamilton. when we took him down to Louisville OCR operations. We're actually in full agreement on the property we're proposing today, which is 757. He has some issues on adjacent properties, and I don't think they're probably germane at this hearing, but he wants to be heard. And if that is his right to do so, I pledge it. Okay, then we'll have that one heard. Then the Rodney and Sean McMullen case has been withdrawn. Number three is PLM BOA 17-36, Core Life. Is the applicant present? Yes. Thank you, sir. Any opposition? Hearing none. All right. Number four, PLM BOA 17-38, Bluegrass Stockyards. Applicant is present. Anyone here to be heard on that matter in opposition? Okay. Okay. Then we have PLM VOA 17-41, Thomas W. Miller. Is the applicant present? Chairman Brandt, Ms. Gross. I've talked to them earlier there. They'll be here a little bit later in time for their hearing. Okay. So we'll mark this to be heard. And that brings us to the last item, which will be a revocation hearing, which is related to C-2015-57, Dr. Andrew P. and Charles Lee Schroer. Are they present? Oh, Mr. Murphy is here. Is everyone here else on that matter? I know the staff will give us a report. Okay, so we'll mark that one to be heard. Okay. So that brings us to the first item on the docket. Without opposition, I guess I'd like to hear, I know the staff sent us out revised findings, but this is PLNBOA 17-13, Jake Reardon. And please, Mr. Nicholson, introduce yourself for the record and then proceed. It is Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Jake Reardon, also known as TaylorMade Real Estate. this is basically a modified request we are only kind of going forward with part of the original request and i think we're going to withdraw the other part of the request at this time it is basically a to increase the front yard maximum in a b1 from 20 feet to i believe 90 feet on only one of the lots and that is at the corner of the future madrone way and harrodsburg road it is for a convenience store the planning commission two weeks ago approved the final development plan that showed this building in this location but technically it is off of an access easement and so we needed to reduce or basically enhance the maximum front yard And I'm assuming you have received the revised findings and conditions. Yes, and we are in agreement. In agreement and conditions, okay. So just for the board, so what we have is the staff is now recommending postponement of the variance to increase the maximum front setback from 20 feet to 145 feet from the private access easement line for lot two. And we're going to withdraw that. And they're going to withdraw that one. and then the other item is for the approval of the variance as a lot one does the any members of the board have any questions okay hearing none the chair will entertain a motion based upon the revised Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of POA 1713, Jake Reardon, to increase the maximum front setback from 20 feet to 90 feet for lot one, based also on the recommendations by the staff. And, Mr. Clark, could I modify your motion to put in that this is for PLN BOA 17-13, and that we are postponing the other portion of the... We're withdrawing. I understand it with withdrawal. Okay. All right. Yes. So I have a first by Mr. Forrester. Do I have a second? I mean, I'm sorry, by Mr. Clark. Do I have a second, Mr. Forrester? I guess you're getting us confused because we both. I'll second that motion. I have a second with Mr. Forster. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Mr. Chair, if we could go ahead and proceed with swearing in folks that are going to speak. I apologize. Yes. I promise I told the truth. If you are speaking today, if you would please stand and raise your right hand for me. Do you hereby swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I just do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marks. The next item on the agenda with no opposition is PLM BOA 17-37. Sean and Katrina Smith is the applicant present. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. I'm Greg Elam. Reside at 3740 Winchester Road. And Mr. Elam, your association with the Smiths is? Close friend, helping them expand their home. They want to stay in the area, and they've kind of outgrown the home they live in, So that's the purpose of the addition. So are you the contractor then? Semi-retired contractor. Okay. I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, we have one letter of opposition. I just want to give a chance for everybody to read it before we move forward. We've had one letter of opposition, so we're going to go ahead and pass that. So if you can give us a couple minutes. Okay. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Elam, please come back up to the podium. Okay, so we have one letter in opposition from a neighbor regarding the location of the addition. It appears from the letter they would prefer to have the addition on the back of the house rather than on the side of the house. But does anyone else here on the board have any questions relating to this project? Yes, I do. Mr. Eland, I've seen the property, and I had not read this letter until just now, but I had the same impression that by building it on the side, you're coming off of close to the property next door, plus you're taking some of the driveway away. And so I was wondering myself, why not build it on the back? They had a raised patio on that home, and that's why you see when you look at that property, a big slope there. And it was that way since the late 50s when it was built. They had that tore out last year because it was getting ready to fall, and the concrete foundation and everything went actually closer to the property line than it really shows. The house next door, Mrs. Bullock, has been there since the early 60s, and her home is within probably 12 feet off her property line. The back is the ground slopes so bad, the septic system that is in there. I've met with the health department now, and he just recommended us not extend the living space to where we have to change a septic system because of the way the ground lays and everything. So if we're built on the back, it's not feasible. construction wise so there was something existing there on the driveway yeah that's where you see a big wide driveway that kind of slopes over a hill that was an existing patio that was level with the first floor of the house yeah and uh i had a fella go in last year and because they've got young children didn't need to be up on it didn't need to be around it but the walls were We're starting to cave. We hauled all that away. So is that patio the same size as the new addition would be? No, it was actually bigger. Bigger. It was 22 foot over. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you, Mr. Union. Okay. How far away is the addition going to be from the existing home to the right? I think we were asking for going within 12 feet, so with the 12 and the other, it's probably 22 feet. The property next door on that side, I had the property surveyed, and it's either 8 or 10 feet off the property line. The house would be east of it. I'm not sure the address. It would be east of this property. It's kind of close over to the property. This is a smaller-length house. It's kind of sitting in the middle of the property, so to speak. Yeah, that's fine. It's an old Bedford Stone home, and I had just done my old home place there on Winchester Road a few years back. and they said, oh, we didn't know you could do something Bedford Stone. So the Bedford Stone is going to come off the side, match into the front, and when it's done, you're never going to spend that on to it. I don't really have a problem with adding to the side. But to me, it would look a little more in line with the rest of the houses on that line if it was behind. I tried to just scan the other down, and it didn't really look like anyone else had done a side addition. It is probably the smallest house in that row of houses, starting at the fire station all the way to Cleveland Road. And what will that roof line look like coming down over that chimney from that hip? Oh, the hip roof? From the hip roof to your addition. Oh, the addition will keep on. The hip will just move out to the 16th. So that top ridge line of the hip will continue? It will continue on out, yes. And the chimney goes away? The chimney is going away. And then will you be able to drive back around to that back pad? Yes. With the 12 feet. So essentially that car we see right there is where it's the end of that. It would probably end about right there. I'm probably leaning towards I would approve it. Obviously, I'd like to see it behind, but this neighborhood's older. The house is a little smaller than the rest, and I think if you do that addition right, that house should look the same size as the rest on the street, even with the addition. That's where I'm leaning. Anyone else have any? Okay, hearing no more comments, then the Chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA 17-37, Sean and Katrina Smith's request of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 25 feet to 12 feet in order to construct an addition to the existing single family residence in the agricultural AR zone at 4179 Winchester Road. based on staff's reasons and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. I second the motion. And before we vote, we have a first by Mr. Needham and a second by Ms. Whitman. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, they are in agreement with the two staff recommendations for the approval? Yes. Okay. I just want to get that on the record. Thank you. So we have a first and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Good luck with the project, sir. Thank you. So we're going to now skip to number five on the agenda, which is PLNBOA 17-40 Parade of Puppies. If the applicant could come to the podium and introduce herself for the record. Hello, I'm Lenny Halstead, owner and groomer at Parade of Puppies. the staff has recommended four conditions for this for their recommended approval have you seen those conditions absolutely yes your agreement with those yes i am okay does anyone on the board have a question regarding this application i have a question i'm i read it i'm not sure how operationally this works and maybe you can go through it with me so i'll feel a little bit better about it. Okay. Essentially, you don't want to keep the puppies there overnight. Is that correct? Correct. We take them home with us every night. They don't stay in the store. They don't stay in the store. No, never have stayed in the store. You get them up, you get them in the car and you bring them over? Mm-hmm. Crates in the car and we take them home every evening. Huh. Yes, we've never left them one night in the store. Okay, and they'll only be on site during uh i guess it says we do three days a week with the puppies usually the weekend we used to do friday saturday sunday now we do thursday friday saturday for the summer and they're there from 10 to 5 thursday through saturday and then we groom the rest of the time okay is there any i couldn't tell is there space behind the building how do yes there's a wooden deck behind the building and then you got about another five feet until you hit the fence line. I guess I might mean is there green space or are the dogs ever left out in the yard? No our puppies are tiny puppies they're only between about eight to twelve weeks normally and our vet because Parvo is so bad in Lexington our vet does not allow them on the grass until they've had all the rounds of shots and by that time they're usually in their new home so no we do not put them on grass when they're that young there is green space back there with our grooming dogs that we use to let them use the restroom but not with our puppies and i'm assuming staff we don't have any record of any complaints for this property i think that's what prompted the original investigation was one complaint and i'm not sure it was a formal complaint. We got a call from Animal Control. They were inquiring about how the activity was working. But it wasn't from the residential neighbors that you're aware of? A lot of our complaints are anonymous, so I'm not sure we could pinpoint where it came from. Okay. Mr. Chair, I've seen the property, and since the dogs are not outside, I don't see any problem with this. And my cursory glance at the property seems most appropriate, particularly since it's inside. And I just wanted to make sure there weren't any kennel-type activities going on exterior that would bother the neighbor. So assuming that there are none, I'm fine with this application. Does anyone else on the board have any questions today? I'm fine with that. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we approve the BOA 1740 Parade of Puppies requesting a variance to reduce required distance from a commercial kennel to a residential zone from 100 feet to 9 feet in the B-1 zone and subject to the recommendations of the staff. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? Second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Thank you, ma'am. Good luck. Thank you very much. We are now going to move to the conditional use appeals. The first item on that list is PLM BOA 17-32, Mill Ridge Farm. If the applicant could please come to the podium and introduce themselves for the record. Price Bell with Mill Ridge Farm. Thank you, Mr. Mill. The staff has recommended approval to us based upon the three conditions. Have you seen those conditions? Yes, sir. In your agreement with those conditions? Yes, sir. Okay. Do we have anyone on the board who would like to ask any questions of the applicant? Mr. Chair, this is a letter of support. Okay. Well, we have one letter of support. Nice. Mr. Chair, I'd like to just say that I've seen the property and have been on the property and know about horse country since its beginning, I think. And so I would very much support this enthusiastically. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We'll give Mr. Clark a second to read the email in support. And I would only add that I would agree. It seemed it's been a – we had one of the – I think you were – sorry, officially the first. Because we had one last week or last month that was postponed. So congratulations to that. But I'm in favor of it. Thank you. Well, can I have a motion then from one of you gentlemen? Mr. Chair, our motion will approve PLNBOA 17-00032 Mill Ridge Farm. Request a condition use permit to establish a farm gift shop in the agricultural AR zone at 2800 Bowman Mill Road, based on the staff's recommendations and the three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Do I have a second? Second the motion. Ms. Whitman seconds. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. I have to go spend some money. The next item on the docket with no opposition is PLNBOA 33, Center Point Christian Church. If the applicant would please come to the podium and introduce yourself for the record. My name is Tom Cruise. I'm the architect for the project. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. The staff has recommended approval based upon or with the three conditions. Have you seen those conditions? Yes, we have, and we agree with them. And your client is in favor of those or agreement of those? Does anyone on the board have any questions for this applicant? I do, as usual. I'm interested in why what's the purpose of the shed that seems to be not part of the structure that I've seen out there it is for storage of youth equipment and things of that nature there is a portable sound system and some other kinds of things that the church had early on before they were able to establish at that location that they'd like to store there's a trailer out there or something like that now And that will probably try to be stored in there as well. Okay. Now, I guess I was just wondering why that couldn't be incorporated in your new addition. There's not room, really, in the back because of a low stormwater area that runs behind the building, and so the side is really the only place, and we're taking most of that for this addition of the main body of the building. Okay. Good. Thank you, sir. Any other questions or comments? Okay, hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA 17-33 Centerpoint Christian Church's request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing church in a light industrial I-1 zone at 865 Greendale Road based on staff's reasons and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Forster seconds. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye and opposed. Hearing none. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is PLNBOA 17-35, Full Force Athletics, LLC. If the applicant would please come forward and introduce yourself for the record. In this one, the staff has recommended disapproval, so we will have the staff give us a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. John Bunch with SBN Stone Commercial Real Estate, representing Full Force Athletics on behalf of their request to lease this premises. This is Linda Stevenson. She's with Full Force Athletics. We had one other party who was in a car accident on the way here, so she will not be in attendance. So all that, Linda. So what our facility is designed for is recreational and competitive gymnastics and tumbling and cheerleading. and I believe the problem was the amount of parking available for patrons and staff alike. We only have four employees and a number of our classes and practices are closed. Therefore, our staff or our parents usually drop off their athletes and then pick them up at the end of class. There was also an offer to pave a grassy area to provide additional parking because leasing parking across Forbes Road obviously was problematic due to having no pedestrian crosswalk. And so we don't ever utilize more than six or seven spaces at a time just because we have four people in staff at one time, and then we have a number of students that are dropped off and parents don't park. They pick them up at the end of classes or practices because most of those are closed. Thank you, Ms. Stephenson. Ms. Stephenson, I guess staff, would this be for better discuss by you or by engineering? I think Casey could maybe speak to the concerns that traffic had, or I can discuss those as well either. Well, then please proceed. Sure. Oh, and also, real quickly, would you mind throwing up the plan on the... All right, here we go. Thanks. So Traffic Engineering reviewed this site plan, and our concerns were there isn't enough room on the site to provide the required parking. Even entering and exiting the site, because of the frontage, there's not enough area for a car to pull in, back out, and then pull forward onto South Forbes. And traffic does not want cars backing onto South Forbes from their parking lots. We were also opposed to providing the parking on the opposite side of South Forbes just for obvious reasons of the volume of traffic and the type of traffic on South Forbes. It's not a location where we want especially younger patrons walking back and forth across that street. It looks like to me, is this an office warehouse flex building currently? I believe so. I'm not sure what the current use is. Mr. Bunch, if you don't mind. I guess you could say this is semi-flex. Looking at the property, the south side of the property is office space. It's two-story. Total square footage is at 8,150, I believe. There's probably a split up between 2,000 square feet of office, 6,000 square feet of warehouse space. You know, the way that the building's situated on the lot isn't really conducive parking-wise for anyone. You know, you have two parking spaces allocated for an 8,100-square-foot building. There's not many uses, including heavy industrial at that, that only have two employees. So in saying that, the owner of this parcel owns the parcel across the street and several parcels within close proximity, which he would be open and available to leasing out to them. so that's where we're at we didn't include again that front grass parcel on again the south end of the building if you're looking at this picture which can be paved and striped in allowance at moore park what was it previously used for it was previously used um the the last tenant used it as a a supplier for wedding supplies. I guess it's more of event planning and things of that nature. They do a lot of work out at Keeneland and a couple different places in terms of larger events. And what was it originally built for? The original use, I'm not sure of. Okay. Casey, what could go in here that would, the parking would suffice? I think anything that's a similar use, such as something where you're not having customers coming and entering and exiting the property, is just a limited, whether it's contractors that come in the morning and get their stuff and leave, I think it is limited. I mean, I'll definitely say it's a hard site, but I would definitely be opposed to putting a use on there where we have, especially kids, you know, crossing South Forbes is just not something I think traffic could support. And then, you know, if you put the parking on the other side, that's their only option is to walk across there. The last user of the property had 10 employees. And then when we're looking at this now, you put a contractor in there with equipment. You put a contractor in there who has to constantly be backing in trailers and everything else. It's even less conducive to the traffic flow between that intersection. It blocks it completely. So you have less employees. And we're also talking about after hours here. the majority of people in this area are working 8 to 5. We're talking after hours where the traffic is significantly less and the flow is less and it's less getting blocked up and less equipment blocking the streets. I think it's a better use. I think it's a less trafficked area during those times. South Forbes is classified, I believe it's an arterial roadway. I guess this application is for the use for a gymnastics facility. And for this use, even off hours, that doesn't change traffic's viewpoint on it. It's just not a site that supports it. So just so I'm clear, how many parking spaces are being proposed for the site on site parking? So their site plan shows, I'm going to estimate 10 or 15, but those aren't parking spaces that would be, they don't meet our parking standards. So in order for it to be a parking space, not only does it have to be the typical 9 by 18 size, but you have to be able to pull onto your lots and then pull back out in a forward position. So you have to be able to pull onto the lot, turn around on your own property, and then pull back out onto the road facing forward. And that's on any roadway. Definitely on South Forbes. I would say, yeah, from my experience, since I've been on the board, I know even child care facilities in residential neighborhoods, we try to not allow this back out. parking and these roads are much more safe than what's being proposed. So the proposed grassy area on the south, obviously that wouldn't be acceptable either? It wouldn't be. The proximity to the intersection and I also don't think just dimension wise it would be appropriate. I don't think you could fit a parking space on there and be able to pull back out. I mean, to me, the only thing that seems logical is you put a bridge over the town branch and you make the, I guess it would be landscaper's corners where they exit is the parking, and then you walk over and have a designated bridge, but I don't think that's probably in the budget. I can clarify that it is not. It is not. Okay. All right. Ms. Stevenson, tell me the schedule in the evening starts at like 5 o'clock. 5.30 is our earliest class or practice. And how many classes are there? At one time, there's two different floors. So at one time, there could be as many as three practices, two classes, two recreational tunnel classes, and then an all-star practice class on the adjacent floor. And how long those practices last, the entire time? We'll be in the facility between 5.30 and 9 o'clock. Okay. There'll be two classes that go, 5.30, 6.30, 6.30, 7.30. And all-star practice will start 6.30 and end at 8.30. and after staff get cleaned up and get balances done, we usually are out. So these practices are generally an hour long? The recreational classes are an hour long. The all-star practices are two hours long. Okay. Yes, sir. So a lot of movement of people in and out. I guess that's what concerns me with the parking. Even if it wasn't a busy road, and it is busy, I parked there just to look at the building and had a hard time moving and getting back out on the road. So I just wondered how frequent the movement would be. So thank you. What are the age of the students? um our the age goes from three to 18 but our our toddler and many age groups which is three to eight are always accompanied with a parent once they come in um and then we'll take them to their parent when they are when the class is over um does anyone else on the board have any More questions? I, for one, given the nature of the road and the building, I understand this is a hard building to fill back in. I personally am not comfortable with the parking arrangement, given the fact that it's children and children courses. I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I don't see a lot of support for this application as proposed. is there a way for staff, is there a way you could think that something could be proposed that would alleviate this or is this property just not conducive to this particular use? It appears that the property is just not conducive. They're required to have 11 spaces and they are just outside of the infill and redevelopment area so there is no room to vary that number at all. So they are stuck with having to come up with 11 spaces which just does not seem feasible on this property. Well, the chair will entertain a motion. I move that we, based on staff's recommendation, we disapprove PLNBOA 17-35's full force athletics LLC's request for a conditional use permit. to establish an athletic club facility in a heavy industrial I-2 zone at 195 South Forbes Road, based on the two reasons outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Clark seconds. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Good luck, and I hope you can find another location for your project. Thank you for your time. Thanks, Mr. Bunch. We are now going to move to the Administrator Review cases. The first one on the docket without opposition, make sure I get this right, would be PLN BOA 17-36 Core Life. If the applicant could come forward and please state your name for the record. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson again here on behalf of Core Life. We have reviewed the staff report and the conditions, and we have no problems with it. Thank you, sir. Does anyone on the board have any comments? My comment was when I received the site plan. Yes. It's quite difficult to make out. Heads or tails of it? Yes. The summit is a very large site. Can we put it up on the screen just to see if I'm sure maybe others can help me. This might be easier. So this is the fund development plan of the summit. Nicholasville Road, Manowar, here's where the Whole Foods is, here's the Walmart across the street, the main entrance right here. This is the site that we are talking about. The proposed sign is kind of right here on the corner. The only place that it would be visible is when you're traveling south down Nicholasville Road. It is blocked by Whole Foods and the Starbucks and I forget what else. I think it's a cycle bar right there. It will be blocked as well from basically when traveling south when these buildings are going in at the next phase. The type of sign is kind of a, lack of a better term, a marquee, kind of like what was just approved down on Main Street for the Crafting Cocktails place and also Sound Bar. They're also kind of scattered throughout the summit site itself. Part of the original appeal with the summit was that we were going to be creating a small-town, downtown-type feel, and it was one that needed to be focused on the pedestrian. And that is kind of why we're requesting this type of sign, is in order to basically catch the pedestrian's eye. We're not marketing to the vehicle, and that's kind of why it's necessary. If this was just a traditional wall sign, it would be advertising only to basically the Nicholasville Road traffic, and that's not kind of where our traffic is. so that's why we kind of had to go out and sideways as opposed to a traditional wall sign So other than it being a hard sign, this, I guess, would be similar to what is on the Barrister Hall or Mr. Rosenberg's jewelry store? Okay. And, like, if this sign was basically flush up against the wall, we wouldn't have to be here. Any other comments or questions for the applicant? All right, hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN BOA 1736 of Core Life as an administrative appeal to transfer 108 square feet of unused wall signage to allow a projecting sign of up to 120 feet in a mixed-use MU-3 zone at 4040 Thin Way, which is part of the summit, with the conditions projected by the staff. Thank you, Mr. Clark, for your first. Do I have a second? I'll second that motion. Mr. Forrester, seconds. And real quickly, my note, I noted that your client was in agreement with the conditions. Yes, we are. Thank you. Hearing none, then I will, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you very much. Good luck with the project. Thank you. You're up for the next one, too? Okay. The next one is number four, PLM BOA 17-38, Bluegrass Stockyards. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. We have reviewed the staff report, and we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Does anyone on the board have any questions or comments for this application? Once again, I had troubles. That's okay. I had a feeling. We can do this again. So unlike the Fritz Farm, this is a very uncomplicated site plan. Here is Iron Works. Here is the interstate. this is the location of where the sign is going to be. It is on the interstate, and it is over 1,700 feet away from Ironworks. It is not visible from Ironworks. It will only be visible to the traveling public on the actual interstate. It's about halfway on the parcel. The parcel actually goes over into Scott County. It's much deeper. and it is about half the size of a typical billboard on the interstate. So we certainly think that it's a reasonable request considering only the people traveling 70 miles per hour are going to be able to see this and 50 square feet just doesn't look very pretty when you're going 70 miles per hour. Mr. Nicholson, do you have a design? Yes, sir. It is made out of kind of old barn wood and attached to a fence gate. It is hopefully about to pop up here. There we go. It is externally lit. It is with directional lighting from below directly on there. The light will not be encroaching on any other property, again, as this is at the middle of our property and right on the interstate. We believe that it is kind of very indicative of the use and also the surrounding area, and that's why we wanted to make sure that it kind of maintained the agricultural appeal of the sign. How far is that from the interstate? It is roughly 150 feet off of the lane of traffic. Okay. Yeah. I like it. Thank you. I can't take full credit for the design. And you did say it will not be illuminated. It's going to have distant lighting illuminating it? Yes. It's not internally lit. It's not an LED light or anything like that. Any other questions? Well, hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, our motion will approve PLN-BOA-17-00038 Bluegrass Stockyard. An administrative appeal to request a transfer of 150 square feet of unused allowable wall signage to allow a 200 square foot freestanding sign along the interstate and agricultural rural zone at 4561 Ironworks Pike 110 based on the staff's recommendations and the two conditions. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Mr. Forrester, give me a first. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Needham, second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Thank you. Is that complete business? That completes my business if I can be excused. We'll see you next month. And I'd like to thank everyone for their patience today. This is an extremely long docket. I believe we have now gone through all the unopposed items, which will bring us back to the beginning. So the first item on the agenda that has opposition is PLN BOA 17-39. I believe we have a number of items in opposition. So if you could introduce yourself for the record and then give us a couple minutes to sort through the stack of items we've just been handed and then we'll have the hearing. John Sampson. Thank you, Ms. Sampson. Julia Sampson. Thank you, Ms. Sampson. If you guys want, you can just sit right there in the first row and then we'll. Thank you. Thank you for giving us a few minutes. So we have, it appears to me, 45 letters in opposition that are general, and then we have a couple other letters in opposition that were more specific. And so before you guys give your presentation, the staff has recommended approval, and I would assume that you have seen the recommended conditions. Yes, sir. And you're in approval of those? Yes, sir. Okay, so we've got that on the record. So with that being said, please, I think it would be beneficial if you give us a general discussion of what your plan is. And then after you're done, we'll then allow members of the opposition to also speak. and then we'll make a determination. Thank you. Yes, sir. So my wife and I just recently purchased the property there at 280 Swiger. The home there was built in 1940. In at least the last 20 years or so, it's kind of been in neglect, and we really want to go in there. We're going to do a remodel, restore that, clean up the property. Along with it, we want to tear down the two existing structures out there and put up one larger structure. I have some, there's my site plan. So the building, it's about 300 feet back there off the road, and there are a lot of large trees in front and back and all sides. It's really, this is in a part of what attracted us to that area is this kind of that rural setting. The area is older homes, and many of those do have accessory structures and large barns in agriculture activities throughout the area. So that's part of the charm. And we want to fit in with that area. And we think this does. We have some older vehicles that belong to my parents that we've had in my family forever. And I want to keep those. And those really need to stay inside. We have a 1946 camper. We've got some things that just need to stay inside, along with just some agriculture equipment that I just want to keep inside. It's better, I think, for the property. I think it's better for the neighbors. I mean, things aren't going to be sitting outside. We're going to keep our property in good repair and in a clean state. And this just helps to do that. So that's why we're asking for this variance, for the square footage. Are there any of the rest of the zoning guidelines? I mean, now we can meet. It's just the square footage that we're asking for. I'd like to just, for our clarification, okay, so the 24-foot by 22-foot building that will be removed. I've got an aerial pulled up. It looks like it is currently a barn. It's a storage shed, basically, of some kind. The one closest to the front, I would call it more of a shed, and the one that's further in the back is kind of a varnish maybe style or something like that. It's had some chicken coop in there and some storage and garden room. They're both in considerable state of disrepair. Is this going to be a single floor? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. And then I see in the letters there are some, and I'm not sure what exactly, what is a lean-to structure? That's just a roof, just the roof, and the sides would be open. So you have, you know, cover up the top. I have two small ponies, and it's basically an overhang off the back of the barn for shelter for the ponies. Oh, okay. They take exception to being locked up. Will that be paved, or will it be dirt underneath? I mean, so it won't be concrete. The inside of the barn? No, yeah, both. Is it going to be a concrete pad, or is there going to be? Inside would be concrete, outside would not. Okay. So the lean-to portion would be dirt? Yes. Okay. Let me mention that the proposed lean-to is 16 by 45. It says 16 by 60 here, and it's probably 16 by 45, correct? That would be correct. Yes, sir. I think what I need to see or hear addressed is when I first looked at the overhead online, all this, I guess it's called drain field piping. The leach field system. It's your leach field system? Yes, sir. And I've never seen one quite that large. It's on behind the barn there a ways, you know, further back in the property. There was a drain field out of the one in my previous home. It was a very large field as well, so I'm not. It was existing before we purchased the property as well. And are those just, it's hard to see from our angle, just a terrace? Is that kind of how that terrace is down, or I'm not sure? Yeah. The area we're looking at, has it been buried? Have they been buried now? Yes, it's now horse pasture. What we're seeing is the leach field itself. It's all underground. That was the same, when we went and looked at the property and then we looked at it on Google Map, We were quite surprised to see that on Google Map because that's not what the property currently looks like. Okay. And what's the fall there from where your house is to really the end of your property? How many feet would that slope? Oh, it undulates. Oh, it undulates. It's relatively flat until you get back. Probably as you get in the lease, it starts falling some, and then on the backside of it, it drops a bit more. The bigger of the two buildings back there, the floor underneath actually slopes down. The water runs through the building currently. It sure needs to be replaced. And how many vehicles do you plan on storing this facility? In what types? I have a 1965 Mustang convertible. I have a 1949 Dodge Wayfarer Roadster convertible. I currently have the Mustangs pretty much, you know, it's running and looks nice looking car. The Dodge I still have to finish the restoration on. I have a temporary, I'll have another 1950 Dodge there that we pull a lot of the parts off of and stuff to do that. We have a 1946 teardrop camper. It's kind of, you know, custom made thing back in the day there. So I'll have that in there. I have a Kubota tractor with a front-end loader on it. I've got two equipment trailers that will go in there. And then we have a personal drive. I don't always drive 1960 and 40 vehicles, but I have my current cars. I have a Chevrolet Corvette. We've got a truck. She has a Dodge car. So, you know, I'll have a – you know, from occasion they could be in there. There is a very small two-car attached. It's actually maybe a one and something that's attached there right now. So, you know, from a day-to-day, I could park one of my other vehicles back there, but as far as really more of the storage side or something I'm not going to get out every day would be those older vehicles. But there won't be any bathrooms or kitchen facilities or anything of that nature? No. No, sir. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Does anyone else have? Oh. In some of the letters, there seems to be some concern about what the barn will look like. So if you could tell us what the construction is going to be like, what the colors are, et cetera, that might ease people. Yes. It will be pole barn type construction. Okay, that's the idea. I'm going to put a post in the ground. It will be on the exterior structure. It will be of a painted steel or gavel loom type metal. I mean, it's common around, so we'll use that. We're going to put wainscoting around the bottom so it's the first few feet up. It kind of gives it a little bit more appealing type look. And the same thing we're going to do on the house, we're going to do some stone wainscoting there. And so we've got really two color palettes kind of picked out right now, so we haven't defined it. We really want to make sure we choose the house first, and that's what we're going to see. and a bigger part of the investment there. So there's two color palettes that we're going to try to match so it kind of fits in with the home in style and color. And so we want to make it, in our last building, I kind of put more of attractive doors on it so we're not trying to make just a plain-jane storage shed. We want to make something that's got, even though you really can't see it from the road, I want it to still have a curb appeal to it, and we'll do some landscaping and such back there. We want to have a nice place. Is there going to be a paved driveway, or is it going to continue to be dirt like you have currently? It will not be paved any time and immediately. I would want to say sometime down the road I would want to do something differently, but that's not in the budget at this time. It'll either be gravel or wood chips. Is that something they'd have to come back in front of us for approval for a driveway of that length and location? I think the only way it would have to come back is if some kind of drainage issue resulted from this hearing that addressed future impervious services. But it's unlikely that it would have to come back to the board. Any more questions or comments from the board before we allow? Opposition? Well, thank you very much. If you could take a seat for one second. Thank you. How many people are here in opposition? And keep raising your hands if you would like an opportunity to speak. Okay. So what we'll do then, what I recommend is for you to line up one side or the other if you would like an opportunity to speak. We want to give everyone an opportunity who wants to speak, a chance to speak today. I would ask, though, that to the extent that your comments have already been brought to our attention, that we don't become repetitive because we are a volunteer board. This is the last afternoon hearing before the long weekend, so I'd like to get everyone kind of out here as quickly as we can. So with that being said, and once again, if you would, when you come up, introduce yourself. Your name, if you could let us know a general vicinity where you live in comparison to this property, that would help us out. So, sir, whomever would like to speak first, please come up and join the podium. I didn't realize I was going to be first, sorry. My name is John Paul Miller, and I live at 277 Swigert Avenue. And what concerns me is that I live just around the corner. my house is next door, my next door neighbor's lot is a little narrower than the Samson's lot, but if this structure was right out my back door where this is proposed to be, that's what I would see out of my kitchen window, and I would not like for that to be approved. The other thing, I haven't done a lot of research on this, but I understand that basically this 2700 accessory building is way over the allowable square footage for an accessory building. There's a formula based on what the house is and then what an accessory building could be. And I just disagree that in the neighborhood, as the owners have said, it is a very unique neighborhood with a lot of rural properties. And to have this big of a structure in the backyard for the adjacent neighbors would not be appropriate. And I just have a question that I wrote down here. The staff says it will not alter the character of the general vicinity. I think it surely will alter the character of our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Next. Okay. My name is Jeff Creech. You received a letter from me. If you don't mind me paraphrasing that, I'm not a public speaker. My wife and I are the homeowners at 276 Swigert. We're the immediate northeast neighbors of 280 Swigert. We bought our property 38 years ago and have spent enormous time and great effort and money in improving the structure and landscape to enhance the value, the visual appeal, the comfort, and enjoyment of our home. We have recently even purchased the other property adjacent to us at 272 Swigert with the purpose of further improving our property value, the appearance, and to preserve the charming character of this unique residential setting. Can you show photograph one there, please? This is an overhead of our two properties. The S would be the proposed Samson building. The little C over there is my current barn, which is 39%, I think, of my residential square footage, which is well within the 50%. I think that's the formula for R1B. The big S there, that's the size of the building that Mr. Sampson is proposing to build, 45 feet by 76 feet. My current barn is only 44 feet long. It would be wider than mine is long. The little extra little yellow thing stuck on there is the size of my barn and superimposed on his. You could put four of my barns in his. Mine's adequate. for almost anything we've done in 38 years as far as taking care of our property and housing our equipment mr samson's variance request is for a structure it's out of keeping with the similar size of the size of similar structures in the area the footprint of the requested structure is approximately three times the footprint of his residence and almost four times the square footage of the livable area of his residence he wants a building that's four times the size of the next nearest similar structure. It'll be the minimum setback from the adjoining property, whereas similar structures in the area are all greater than the minimum setback. Is there a couple of other questions? Could you put up like two and three together? Can you show up at the same time as it's possible? One at a time? And to put things to scale because numbers are deceiving, we can say 45 feet, 75 feet. It's hard to picture those things in your mind. On the left is a photograph. That's my existing home. That's my residence. To the right is my existing barn. The footprint of my residence and my barn could both be put inside the requested structure. and have some room to wiggle around in there a little bit. The plan submitted for the structure does not include provisions for access paving in either design or dimensions or materials, nor does it address rain runoff issues from impermeable surfaces, which would be the roof, the parking area, and the access paving. Only in casual conversations with the new owners have they mentioned that they want to use concrete. So I guess that's what they mean by whatever they pay with down the road, an impermeable surface. Public health issues, such as runoff over a new, very shallow septic leach field located immediately downhill from the structure. This leach field, when it was put in, is lower than the structure. The structure that he's proposing is going to be built on the highest point on his property line. and that leach field is currently being used by grazing animals and that's not included in the variance request there's um here's a to put things in scale there's a building that is somewhat smaller than the building he's proposing That's 45 by 60, so it doesn't include the 16-foot shed on the back. Oh, that 16-foot by 45-foot shed on the back is 80 square feet smaller than my barn, than my entire barn. I can put my barn under the proposed lean-to. And I think this next one, here's a screenshot. of Mr. Sampson's previous barn. This was on his, he had a 10-acre farm on Briar Hill that had this barn on it. That's 40 by 60. That's smaller. That's 16 feet, even larger, more than that, because he wants one 45 feet wide. The proposed barn is going to be larger than that one. There's just not a structure on Swigert or Elmwood or any place in the vicinity that's that large. There may be some question about the calculations used in the estimate of the allowable structures since the residential square footage includes unfinished basement space and it includes attached garage space, which is not livable square footage. And although there may be evidence of other properties in the vicinity that have been granted variances for accessory buildings, but in general these are situated on lots of 10, 7.5, 5, and greater than 2 acres. Those all provide decent setbacks, and they have less visual impact, and they all afford the owner freedom to farm, which may not apply to the 280 Swigert, as it is less than 1.75 acres. There is one property in the vicinity with a smaller acreage that has a conditional use variance. Mr. Sampson neither consulted with nor advised his neighbors of the extent of his plans other than to tell us to sign off on his variance request when we get our letters. We're not against Mr. Sampson building a structure that is within the bounds of the existing restrictions if it employs a location with a reasonably spaced setback from the property lines and it is landscaped and eliminated with minimum visual impact on neighboring properties. I think Mr. Sampson believes in that old joke that everybody's heard that the one that dies with the most toys wins. But we're all in favor of him enjoying his possessions. We just want him to, we think he might have the idea that it's Jay Leno's Garage. I don't know if everybody's seen that program on CNBC. Jay Leno has a huge vehicle collection. But Jay Leno's Garage is located in a warehouse district next to a truck rental. He could have that on his residence if he wanted, but even he doesn't. I just really encourage you to deny this very – there's another photo. This might make a little bit more clear about the runoff. We put some directional arrows on here to show you on that overhead where the drainage would be from that property because you can't see the elevations. to your immediate right as it drains off that goes down into a sort of a sinkhole that then drains toward Elmwood. Elmwood Drive has had runoff issues for years and you can see where the barn is scribbled in there in blue and the leach field is covered with about eight inches of maybe eight inches of dirt. We were there to see the construction of that. And that field is very shallow. It's going to have animals grazing on it. And when there is runoff off of this huge building off of the roof, that's going to go downhill and it's going to end up eventually, whatever runs off is going to end up on Elmwood Drive. So I feel sorry for those folks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Creech. Ma'am, please come forward and introduce yourself for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Jan Guy. I reside at 276 Swigert Avenue with my husband, Jeff Creech, and have done so for the past 38 years. Our property is adjacent to Mr. Sampson's. Jeff and I have recently purchased the property next to that property, adjacent to ours at 272 Swigert. As a licensed practicing physician for over 40 years, I would like to address the impact on health and public safety such an enormous structure would have in this location. Behind this proposed structure are two grazing horses on approximately one-half acre. These horses are grazing on top of a new, superficially placed septic leach field. Would you please show picture one? This is Swigert after the last rain. Would you please show picture two? It's a list. It's a CDC list. You'll have one. Before you is a list of zoonotic infections, those transmitted from horses to humans, provided by the United States Department Center of Disease Control and Prevention. Transmission of these diseases occurs via air, water, soil, insect vectors, ticks and mosquitoes, direct contact, birds, and infected food sources such as garden vegetables. Would you please show the first page? These diseases are salmonella, ringworm, anthrax, brucellosis, second page, third page, please, cryptosporidiosis, eastern equine encephalitis, western equine encephalitis, Venezuela encephalitis, Ehrlichiosis, Leptospirosis, Lyme disease, MRSA, and rabies, and West Nile virus. Increased water runoff from such a large structure and its access would not only adversely affect adjacent properties on Swigert because our backfield sits lower than Mr. Sampson's, but also the Elmwood neighborhood, which already has established water drainage problems. The health impact could be significant to all neighbors, especially the pediatric population and the elderly. I am not willing to take that increased risk with my health from such an unnecessarily large structure, nor do I think my neighbors should. I strongly urge you to carefully and with knowledgeable consideration deny this variance. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Hello. Hello. My name is Elizabeth Woodward. It's always intimidating to speak after lawyers and doctors, and this is not my world. I'm an accountant, so I apologize if I don't seem very educated. But I am here today representing my husband, who is also with me, Bill and Elizabeth Woodward. We have lived in this neighborhood since 1991. And just to put in context, I guess I'm really here to speak about the character of the general vicinity. And to put in context, if you're on the street looking at the subject property, Jeff and Jan, who just spoke, own the two lots on the left. My husband and I own the two lots on the right. Our primary residence is right next door at 282. And then we, for investment property, we own the home next to that. Then we also own a home on Elmwood, which you have heard is we are very worried. That's an investment property. We're very worried about potential water damage there. But I also want to point out the Humes are here. They own the lot on the end of the street, and then the Millers, who have already talked, are right across the street. So both members of each house, each couple, all six people or eight, however many that is, we're all here today to tell you we do not believe that this is in the nature of the general vicinity. So I sent a letter to you. I hope. Do you know if it was received? Okay. And I didn't know your process. I hadn't seen the agenda and your decisions, or I would have more specifically addressed them. I do just, you know, from the letter, I won't read all of it. We have lived there since 1991. Swaggart is a rural setting where residents value green space. I would like to hand out a chart. Our Neighborhood Association put together. Can I just hand this out to people? Okay. So what this is, our Neighborhood Association put together some information on square footage, and I'm a CPA, so I think any problem can be solved by putting it in Excel. So this is in Excel and re-sorted, and then I'd like to talk about it. Can we put this on the overhead, too, so the audience can see it? Okay, so what you are looking at is a listing of the properties. They're all R1B. You see in the column, and I apologize, I should have put letters up there to reference them. The resident square foot, RES square foot, that's the size of the residence. The accessory square footage is the size of the building. Total feet there in the middle just adds those two numbers together. Then acres is the size of the lot. The next column is the accessory building to the residence. So that indicates the size of the building to the existing residence on the land. and then over in the far right column, that is kind of the total building to the land space. And so what you see here in yellow is the subject property. You see, first of all, that's a relatively small lot on Swaggart. You see they go down to up to 17 acres. And you also, I think, if you look, then you compare the size of that accessory building, it would be one of the very largest. So you have one of the smaller lots and one of the largest accessory buildings. So in the agenda, when it says it will not alter the character of the general vicinity, I guess we would respectfully disagree with that. Now, I have learned more. We learned more. All we had going into this was this handheld thing. We didn't know anything about the materials. I was very relieved to find out today it's single story instead of double, but I don't think that the plan, I wouldn't call that consistent with the other barns in the area. when it says it will not cause a nuisance to the public. All of these people have taken off work or come here today to spend the afternoon to say we do think this is a nuisance. I know it will affect my ability to enjoy my backyard. We don't think it's similar to others in the area. And I guess the thing that almost has bothered me more, the order of this seems odd. In your ruling, it says a strict application of zoning ordinance will deprive the applicant of reasonable use as he would be unable to store personal vehicles and equipment on a large, oversized lot. So as an owner of property in Lexington and a taxpayer, I totally get that that's within your purview, and then you have that obligation to protect citizens. But in this case, this person, they just bought the property. They moved here with this rule in place, and now they're saying we can't enjoy our property because we need a bigger building. And that just, I don't understand that logically, and I don't understand that need. So those are my prepared comments. Do you have any questions? Oh, I do have one thing that my husband and my daughter did I need to show you. This is our house, and if you look at the square footage, my home is one of the largest on the street. This is the proposed structure on a smaller lot. I have more land and the proposed structure would be bigger than my home, which is significant to me. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Woodward. Ma'am, please. And do you have handouts for us, too? All right. Are these in addition to the ones that we received earlier? Yes. Okay. Do you have an extra? Is this? No, sir. Gotcha. Do you have one for the staff? Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my name is Rose Carver, and I live at 253 Elmwood Drive. I'm here today on behalf of myself and several property owners on Elmwood Drive to voice our concerns to the large accessory structure proposed for 280 Swigert Avenue. Our major concern to the large structure is the severe flooding of the lower part of Elmwood Drive, created by runoff from the Swigert Avenue properties, which includes the subject property. In fact, 280 Swigert is one of the properties that specifically drains toward mine, and ultimately to the lowest points at 241 and 245. As I pointed out in my letter, which you probably haven't had a chance to see, the large track that abuts a number of properties along Elmwood Drive, I think it's the Guter property, has a stream on it that runs to the rear of 245 Elmwood. That's the McCarty property. This property has a large culvert that's supposed to capture the runoff from Swigert Avenue and ultimately carry it to a drain at the front of the street and go out somewhere. I'm not sure where it ultimately goes to. This culvert is totally inadequate to handle the runoff from Swigert Avenue, just totally, and I think engineering would agree with that. Could you show the picture of the culvert, please? Okay. Okay. Can't get any focus. Why don't you pass it right now? Well, you can see it better in the photograph. but I guess the shade is covering it. Can you see it well enough? We can pass that around if you want. Okay, you can do that. Now, the property at 241, that's on the back of 245, McCurdy property. The next property, the lowest property, or one of the two lowest, is 241 Elmwood. The water has not only flooded the yard, but has entered the crawl space and caused significant damage to that property. Likewise, 245 gets water on all four sides of that home, and waters come very close to entering their living quarters. They're constantly dealing with the threat of flood water ultimately reaching their living quarters. I think in recent years the flooding has gotten somewhat worse, but the flood this past Friday was not the worst situation we've waited through. Mr. McCarty, at 245, told me that the water has been higher in the past, reaching up to the second step out of three steps to his front door. I wish Mr. McCarty could have been here today. He could tell you a lot more about his specific experiences than I can relate and probably do it better, too. But he's recovering from recent surgery and had a doctor appointment today that he couldn't miss. and now I'd like to show you a few pictures of the impact the runoff from these properties have on Elwood Drive. Would you put the next one? Okay, this is, it's very dark. This is the floodwater covering the rear of 245 and 241 Elmwood. The culvert is somewhere beyond that garbage can, the blue, and it's totally covered. You can't see it. It is completely covered. It's just overwhelmed by all the water. It's overflowing into the back and side yards of these two properties. I was hoping you could see it better. There's a fence between the two properties, and you can see that the water has flooded the backyard. Would you continue to pass those? Okay. Okay, now, this is the front and side of a 245, the side of 241. The first step here is covered with water on 245. I don't know if you can see it. and the water on the adjacent property, 241, the water is covering the bottom of a new air conditioner at the site of 241. And water, this happened last Friday, and water that day did enter the crawl space. Could I have the next one, please? That one. That's in the front of 245. And you can see that the water is rushing out of that yard. I think this pretty much says it all. Too bad you can't see the other ones better. You can see the back's better, how much water is in the rear and side yards of this property. but you can see from this that it's pretty bad. Next, please. Now, this is where the water runs across Elmwood Drive, from the rear, and I imagine it's probably picking up some from the street itself, but the bulk of it is coming from 245 and 241, flowing flowing across that over across the street to 236 and 240 which is the next slide the white house is 236 the side lot is 240 they're joined there's joint use of that but it has two different numbers. They're separate lots. But you can see that's a pretty bad situation too. Now there are several others, including myself, that get run off in our backyards, and that creates problems for us. But it's nothing, nothing like what these two, three low properties get. They're severely impacted. And I really don't think the McCarty property can take any more runoff whatsoever. I think, and this was not the worst. There's been worse flooding. If you get more, you know, their house, I guess, is going to float out in the street. I don't know what's going to happen to it. But they cannot take any more, even a small amount. It would be devastating to them. And increase the problems for the others to get the runoff in their backyards. And I think he did say that Mr. Simpson said he's not planting any living quarters in that property. Is that correct? That's good because he is on septic tank, and that would just add to, I don't even know if it would be allowed to be tapped on. I don't think so. I'm not sure. Does anyone know that? It couldn't be done in a way that would allow a second dwelling unit on the property. It could be? Could not. Could not. But it could be used for family as an extra space for living or that kind of thing. So they would permit it to tap on in spite of the rule? Oh, I can't speak for what the health department would require. I'm assuming they would have to reevaluate everything as far as the capacity of the drain field. Okay, well. What Mr. Merckx is saying is this is an R1 zone, which means you can have one dwelling unit. And so I do not believe it would be authorized to add a kitchen and other type of things to have a unit. Okay, that's what I thought. That's what I thought. So we're asking you to give our concerns very serious consideration. It's really bad. And that the engineering division review this carefully and at the very least. And recommend measures that would prevent any additional runoff on our properties. And if that can't be provided adequate safeguards, then we strongly object to the proposal and we would request denial. I have a couple more brief issues I'd like to mention while I'm here that are relevant to this issue. And I think they are in the last two paragraphs, I think, in my letter. Aside from the flooding issue to the rear, the people on Mount Wood Drive also get water from the front because we lack curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on our street. There are sidewalks along some properties, but about half, at least half, maybe more, don't have any, and some are in poor condition as well. Well, we have water running down the street, down the sidewalks, and ultimately flowing into the front yards at the low part of the street. So we get it in the back and the front. If we had curb gutter sidewalk improvements, it would help the water situation along the street frontage. So I'm saying we need help alleviating current conditions, not adding to them. We really need help with that. We need to do something and draw the line somewhere to not create any more additional water on these properties. And last, I'd like to point out the homes on our street provide much-needed affordable housing in the community, and problems of this nature do nothing to help preserve them. I believe we need to do everything we can to protect and maintain our limited supply of affordable housing, which we've been reading about in the news a lot lately, and provide viable neighborhoods in which to live. Again, we ask you to help us preserve our homes from the damaging effects of the flooding on our street and deny this proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Carver. some people I think got tired of standing but I believe we have some more speakers so whomever would like to come up next Thank you. Thank you. Okay. My name is Flora Guter, and I own the property that backyards onto 280 Swigert. It's 238 Swigert. It is a small horse farm, and I have six horses in the field that this water runoff would go into. And I'm not going to bore you or take a lot of your time because I've given you handouts. I want to touch on some facts that basically haven't been done. The first is the roof of this structure. If anybody knows pole barns with lean-tos on them, it is one solid roof that goes over the barn part or storage part and the lean-to, which means that the actual square footage under a roof is 3,740 square feet. Okay, this is a lot larger than was stated. Okay? The second thing is the property has a very distinct slope in the back. So the runoff coming off that roof would pour very fast into or off of asphalt around the property or cement into my field. So it concerns me because I have horses there. If the field is flooding, where do I keep my horses? Okay? And I think Mr. Miller can talk very well about water runoff and drainage, because he knows it from his buildings and stuff. This, to me, is the most crucial fact. also the ponies from what I saw was at the moment a horse and a mule their feet are a lot bigger and cut and go a lot deeper into ground than ponies two animals of this size on a sloping I think it's four tenths of an acre of land approximately will become a muddy quagmire Manure and stuff will go into it because nobody is addressing that factor. I'm worried about my horses. I'm worried about the bottoms of my fence posts rotting out. And I'm worried about my fields flooding. These are things that nobody else is taking into consideration because they're not right behind them. I am. If I had known about this meeting earlier, I would have done a slope plan for you to see how extreme the slope is. So if you concrete up behind the house, you put that building on, the water runoff from the house, the garage, this building will just go so fast down into my back field carrying manure from the horses. I don't know what from the leaching field because I see it getting all torn up with horses being on it into the water that is going to go over to Elmwood and into my paddocks. And I do think this is a health issue amongst other things and I would like to know who compensates me for all this damage. My property is going to be destroyed. And this is very important to me. I mean, you know, to me the size of the structure, the looks of the structure, do not compare to the monetary amount I'm going to be out. And if my horses get sick or I get sick or people get sick, who takes care of them? Okay? Now, if you talk to anybody, if Mr. Nicholson has still been here, he could have told you about these buildings. The water runoff off of them is tremendous. Usually on horse farms, if it can't go into the sewer system, it goes into a pond close by. If it doesn't have flat land around it to absorb the moisture. You know, if it's asphalt and that, I'm going to be running off. You'll see these horse farms where these big pole barns are have some sort of a pond near it to collect this water. Mr. Sampson has not said anything about building a pond. He doesn't have the room to build a pond. My back field will be his pond. Okay? And I think I pretty well covered the extra things that other people haven't covered. I think if you read my sheets, you might get more information out of it. But being the person who is the most directly, financially, and health-wise affected, I had to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Sir? Sir? Did staff get copies of the last handouts? Okay, we'll make sure. Are we ready? Yes, sir. My name is Edgar Hume. My wife and I have lived at 264 Swigert for the last 20 years. I think about the analogy of the nose of the camel in the tent, and I'm sure we're all familiar with what that means, and that this request of variance could easily set a presence that will eventually destroy the beauty and cohesiveness of our neighborhood, as well as decrease property values. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Perkins, 258 Swigert Avenue. I'm also secretary for Joyland Neighborhood Association, and I wrote you a letter with some of my concerns, and I just wanted to state them here. Flora Liu touched on that many of my concerns, size of the animals is an issue. I believe that the formula for grazing, and I used to own a farm in Bourbon County, and I am a thoroughbred horse owner and trainer, is one acre per horse. A pony is considered 14-2 hands. In English, 58 inches or less. A horse is anything bigger. So it's typically one acre per horse. Now, you could probably get away with a couple of ponies on a half acre because they're not supposed to eat. They're on a constant diet. But my understanding is this is a horse and a mule, which stand higher than pony size. But the other thing that wasn't addressed, along with, is waste removal. Mr. Sampson and his wife have not said how they're going to remove the waste of overgrazing. And is this lean-to meant for the animals? Or is this lean-to storage for equipment? If it's meant for the animals, they love to come inside and use the facilities and then go back outside. If it's a dirt floor, urine and manure mixing with dirt becomes very difficult to clean, keep clean, becomes muddy, and smells. It depends on what direction it's pointing. If it's going to be pointing at the neighbors, the neighbors, the neighbors, what do you do and how do you keep that from affecting their property? and also if you're going to put concrete in it then you have the urine running out it's much easier to clean but then you're going to be rinsing it out and where are you going to or are you going to remove the waste and take it elsewhere so that's a concern if I am near the property but it will not affect me directly maybe the smell will the other thing that nobody really has addressed is the trees there are some beautiful trees on this property a building this size many trees are going to be removed how will that affect runoff how will that affect neighboring property they've already moved viable trees have already been removed from their front yard that is their right we understand that but we i also know as Secretary for Joyland at the Fayette Neighborhood Council has been trying to teach us about a good tree stewardship, that Fayette County is really making an effort in our city to educate homeowners on the importance of saving viable trees. We even have an arborist now with LFUCG, I understand, that will come, but this has not been addressed to our knowledge. And for neighbors, we are concerned because we also have a great deal of problems with traffic on Swigert Avenue. This won't affect that, I hope. And I said in my letter, the runoff from my driveway alone, We've tried to help our neighbors by alleviating the original builder of that driveway and the structure on my property. Had the water from the house drain underneath the driveway and into the neighboring yard. We've remedied that by having it move to drain into our own backyard. Of course, then our backyard sort of becomes a little swampy, but we have lots of trees that seem to absorb it. Those are my concerns. And also, I know that LFUCG and the City of Lexington has been doing a great deal of work in our neighborhood with stormwater and runoff and sewage. And I know that Elmwood has suffered very greatly, more so now than it did before a lot of this work was done. Apparently engineers didn't take them into as much consideration when they started diverting water. And I have known a few people on Elmwood who never had sewage back up into their house that are having it now. some of it is from crushed lines from trucks coming in and doing other work in the area. So thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Judy Miller, and my husband and I live at 277 Swigert, and I'm going to be very brief. I just wanted to bring to the Board's attention that in two earlier applications today, the Board has recommended approval because the proposed structure was, and I'll quote, not out of scale and not overwhelming in size in relation to the other structures in its vicinity. Yet, in this case, they're recommending approval of a structure that is grossly out of scale and is overwhelming in size in relation to the other structures in the vicinity. And so I would like to request that you change your recommendation, please. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Miller. Hello. My name is Lisa Cliggett. I live at 262 Swigert Avenue. And I just, I think I'm the last speaker. So I'll be brief. One of the things that wasn't mentioned about the runoff issues into Elmwood and down into Joyland is that actually children play in the runoff frequently. So if you're out on one of these pouring days or right after, you see neighborhood kids. And indeed, it is affordable housing neighborhoods. So I have grave concerns about the impact on communities yet again, lower-income communities. It's a relatively dense neighborhood, so I have great concerns about that. I will also say that I am chair of the Anthropology and Archaeology Department at UK, and I mention that because professionally I am attuned to issues of historic preservation and cultural heritage, and Swigert Avenue does have a cultural heritage. It's an old street. It's the last street on the northern side of Fayette County. It's an interesting balance between the old Joyland Fun Park, Amusement Park, and then Horse Farms on the other side. If our new neighbors had purchased on the other side where the tracks are larger, he would have been able to balance out the mixture of a house, a barn three times the size of his house, more than three times the size of his house, as well as land for the animals that he's proposing. Unfortunately, he bought a relatively small tract of land for pretty ambitious dreams of managing and protecting his property, and I encourage the council to consider your recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clark? My name is Amy Clark. I live at 628 Castle Road, very far from this property. This property is like the kind of place I grew up. My roots are in this kind of partly country living. We had boats, not horses. And it may be hard for you to realize from what you've heard today, but this is an enormously diverse and tolerant neighborhood, Lot sizes range hugely, and also what people do with those lots. There is farm country. There are people who work at UK. You have a letter from me. I probably don't need to go through it word for word. I just wanted to be sure that it was in the record for you, and these things were there for you to consider. Let's call it by its name. In fact, could you put up slide 10? Call it by its name. It's a garage. What it stores is cars. We heard about one tractor. There probably is a little more other equipment, but it stores a great many cars. It's a garage. After the remarks of the owner and staff and so on, I'm left rushing madly through Article 16 about parking and driveways and so on, I encourage you to ask the staff some hard questions about whether a garage is not required to have a driveway and whether it needn't be paved and where there would be room to put such a driveway on this property and how much vehicle use area is needed for turning and maneuvering, particularly when we're talking, he did mention two trailers. There are horses. There must be horse trailers. The neighbors have mentioned a boat. There's a boat trailer. Imagine wheeling it around to get it under that roof. So I think we're looking at not only as one of the neighbors observed an enormous rooftop, a seamless, if you will, rooftop, but also substantial paving, whether it comes initially or whether by some interesting detail it can come along later. Are these licensed cars? Do they go out to car shows? Do they just sit to be admired and apparently repaired as well? I love the cars. My mother had a 68 convertible, just like the one he described as a 65, a Mustang. That's the size of the barn of his Briar Hill residence, Mr. Sampson's, and you've seen it before, and it's slightly smaller than the proposed one. there may be some hardship here on someone who would wish to use the land in this way but it isn't unnecessary hardship it does compromise the character of the vicinity could you put up 12 the screenshot people have talked already and I don't need to go through this you've really had ample testimony this is a different shuffling of the same thing and the subject property is there with 147% of the floor area of the house in garage, and that's what he's asking for a variance for. He actually also, as I understand it, would need a variance for lot coverage. The simple building footprint of all the accessory buildings, the accessory areas, can't exceed 100%, can't be greater than the footprint of the house, and he hasn't asked for that lot coverage variance as far as I can tell. So I don't see how it could be approved even if there were a wish to accommodate this need for car storage. These old county lots along Swigert began as farms, and many retained their farm character and still show farm use. Could I see number 13, please? All the green there are properties that are in farm use, and you'll see that these very large, and okay, 102 at the bottom, that fronts on Paris Pike. And Swigert runs along here and then makes a left turn, a perpendicular. So what you're seeing is the farms of people who have spoken that lie below the property and a little to the east. Thank you. My directional sense is challenged. So everything green there has an agricultural exemption, and there are other properties that seem to be in farm use but don't have that exemption. If I could go back now to the one just before the screenshot, you'll see that some of these properties, really the first four of them are over five acres. And so any accessory structures they have, if they're in farm use, are not regulated by our zoning ordinance. They're not even nonconforming. If now it's R1B and they aren't in farm use, they may have arisen as right-to-farm uses and now are just hanging on. But certainly the comparanda that the owner has furnished for which ones needed a variance or are gigantic two and so on, If, as these people have said, you compare them to the acreage, not just to what's sought in the variance, the square feet of the house in R1B. If you compare them to the acreage, you'll see that really some of the very large lots and some of the lots in farm use have larger outbuildings, and that's altogether appropriate, and it really is a mixed-use neighborhood in the best sense, including affordable housing and housing for seniors. So there are actually fewer extraordinary accessory buildings that are not permitted or would need a variance than the applicants seem to indicate, I believe. So 102 and 232 Swigert get the agricultural exemption, and there were the other lots over the five-acre threshold, 197 and 166. So I needn't go into the adverse effect on the public health and welfare at this point. I think that's been sufficiently addressed. I will say one thing, that part of the issue with not enough room to pasture the horses and not enough room to handle the waste with what we like to call green infrastructure in just a mere half acre is that what's sought here is a variance for a very large building with a very large footprint. That building is going to take space away from what horses need. So it's actually pertinent to what you're deciding today. There isn't room for all that's wished here. Mr. Sampson had a 10-acre lot in Ag Rural, and things fit better there. The land could handle it. Number seven, slide seven, you've seen the septic and the downhill slopes. This is just one that goes a little further. You can see the house. Sorry, you're there. The house has a 20 by 24 foot garage already on it that the application seems to include at times in the residential space instead of in the accessory space that's not supposed to exceed the half of the residential floor space. So there's the house, and then you have the building, and then that field, now that you've heard more about it, you can perhaps picture how the mounded earth over the recently installed new septic system where apparently the neighbors say that it had failed a percolation test, a PERC test. It's actually, the earth is mounded on top of that, so it goes anywhere but into the ground there. Well, the water, if there's extra flood water, storm water from this quite large rooftop, not to speak of any pavement. It really has nowhere to go but off the lot. And, of course, there's a concern that we're getting waste, sanitary waste, sewage on an equine scale, and the only place they have to be is right on top of that area where things flow downhill into the neighbors. Elmwood is kind of, sorry, Elmwood is in that direction. I'm sorry we don't have something for that. Okay. And, you know, I have to say the first thing I did when I heard that there were all these sewage issues, and especially on Elmwood and everything, is I looked at city maps and records. They have these sewer maps and so on, interactive and all that. And I went scouring for it, and I didn't see it. And maybe this is the point at which you say, staff is at a disadvantage here, and it really is up to you to make the right decision because all this information from the neighbors and from just crawling out of the walls, they didn't have a week or so ago when they recommended approval of this. They may not have had. That's what I would think. And it's been my experience that neighbors have reported substantial and significant and widespread sewer problems that aren't in the record or there isn't a coherent record of them or a complete record. So I would encourage you to really take this evidence into account because it is real and it may not be available to the professional staff as they recommend what they recommend. Let's see. You've heard that the plan is really quite deficient. If you could put up number eight, please. It does say it's to scale, but it doesn't have a scale. So as soon as you're on a computer, you don't have that. You can see that the driveway is not drawn to scale. That's the existing driveway for the existing garage. And there's really nothing to connect this proposed garage, which is in great part to store cars, almost exclusively to store cars. Even the horses won't be in it. it's not a barn. There's nothing on there for that, and certainly not dimensioned. There are a lot of rules in the zoning ordinance. If you do have paved parking, first of all, if you have parking, it has to be paved. If you have a parking area and there's a driveway to it, the driveway has to be paved. There are restrictions on the dimensions of these things. The driveway has a setback from the side of the yard. Could I have two PVA buildings sketch? This is the PVA record of the house. And you can see that probably it once had a smaller garage, and when they enlarged the garage, they made more of that the house, and that's nice. Now could I have the number one house width? This is a shot from straight overhead, and you see the driveway coming in to the property, to the second, if you will, the current garage, the existing 24-foot two-car garage. and there is barely room enough to slip around it and certainly not to put a paved driveway observing the 10-foot setback for R1B, the residential lot. So I think you really have to ask, how are these vehicles going to get in and out? Are they just going to come and be delivered and sit there forever? Or if they're in any kind of active use, if they're licensed and registered, if they go to shows. That's going to matter, too. I'm going to add 16.4 B2. B1 is that it has to be paved, and B2 is the setback for a driveway in R1B, just so you have some references. I think the important thing is to call it by its name. It is a garage of some kind. I think you noticed on the slide of his current, the former Briar Hill Road building, there was a driveway to it. So obviously it would be a property that would find a driveway, a structure that would find a driveway convenient. The height of the building isn't noted anywhere. I'm glad to hear it's one story. I'm trying to skim quick here. There are three things that are key, that if there is paved vehicle use area, parking area, that kind of thing, the 16-2 of the zoning ordinance, especially C, E, and G, say that if you have as much as five parking spaces or a vehicle use area that's 1,800 square feet, landscaping is required around it, self-contained drainage, and permanent stormwater management. It's hard to know whether or what sort of paved area there is here. that clause goes on to say that even off-street parking areas of lesser area are required to furnish permanent stormwater retention where flooding and drainage problems would impact the neighboring land. I think you've heard here a great many people who are all too confident, all too concerned that there will be flooding that will impact their land. There's just nowhere to put it. Once you have that big building, there's nowhere to put the horses. There's nowhere to put the water that comes off it. There's nowhere to help the leaching system work properly of the septic. So this is old county land that runs on septic systems. And there are areas that have sewer but not this part of it. And so what you're seeing is that one of the circumstances that isn't at all extraordinary, but is shared in common with everyone along that block there, is that they have to have land adequate to their septic. So these two-acre lots are extraordinarily large for R1B, which requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet. That's actually about a third of an acre. These are pushing two acres. But in comparison to the neighbors, and in light of the septic system situation and the fact that many people farm here, that's how they want to enjoy the use of their land. It's a real problem. And, of course, Dr. Guy mentioned illnesses transmitted between animals and water and people. They have a vegetable garden or a garden right nearby. Can you eat the things from that? Okay. It's Zoning Ordinance 156C that seems to me to require a variance on lot coverage, the building footprint. I have a definition of a vehicle use area that I found if it interests you. It's worth considering whether or not it qualifies. And I guess I would like to say in conclusion, the building alone is too much. The paving that may be required to serve it is far too much again. Please ask the staff a pointed question. Can a garage on a residential lot have no driveway? Can it be anything other than a garage? The garage takes room that the horses need, room that the septic system needs. And finally, I'd like to say you really have all the information you need before you today, here and now, to make a full and balanced decision on this, a fair decision. People have taken off work and come down here. People really have devoted their lives to learning how this all works and how you manage. And they think that this would have an enormous adverse impact on their neighborhood, on their way of life. They think it's out of character. And I personally agree because I also grew up in land that was partly country and partly residential. Like I said, we had boats in the drive and in the garage and so on, not so much horses. But I really encourage you to think how special this neighborhood is and how diverse and varied. And really, I hope you can see how tolerant they are. They're tolerant of one another, and they are welcoming this new neighbor, but it has to be within limits. It has to be what will work so that they can continue to have the quiet enjoyment of their land. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Is there anyone else in opposition who would like to speak? Okay, so what I'd like to do, we're getting late in the day. I would like staff to address the board. I'm sure has some questions at this point from the staff. Once we finish that, I would like to give the applicant another opportunity to speak. the opponents would have an opportunity to briefly mention anything else that hasn't been covered. We have a lot of information in the record. I don't need necessarily people coming up and repeating the evidence that's already been put in the record, but if there is a need, you feel like something has to be rebutted, I will have that. So with that, Mr. Marks, first off, do you have beginning comments, or do you want the board to? Yeah, I've got a couple things to focus in on, just since Ms. Clark's was most recent. The driveway question, I don't think we're going to call that a garage. It's, in our opinion, more of a storage facility, so we would not require that to be paved. The requirement of paving would just make the potential drainage problems even worse than they already might be. So you have kind of a contradiction here in what your goals are. You want to reduce the drainage issues. You don't require that to be paved. So looking at, if you could. I think the size issue warrants, obviously, some more detailed consideration. Article 15-6C, which identifies exactly what the requirements are, is a two-part question. In this case, since it was such a large request, we clumped it all together into the size issue. But now, since we're reevaluating the size issue, we probably need to split this apart a little bit. The first part of this talks about the building footprint. And it says that accessory buildings and residential zones shall not exceed the lot coverage building footprint of the buildings to which they are accessory. So that's one part of this. The other part is the overall size. which relates more to is it going to be one-story or two-story, that kind of thing. It's a beyond-the-footprint question. After hearing all of the testimony and all of the issues, it does appear that we need to pick this apart more closely than we originally did. Now, notice in this section, it makes no distinction between how large the property is, which is a problem. an r1b zone the minimum or maximum lot size i guess it's minimum is 15 000 square feet so this particular lot's about five times the normal size of an r1b lot so you can't ignore that kind of thing and that's why staff generally without having the benefit of all the detailed comments generally is pretty accommodating when it comes to requests for how much accessory buildings you can have on an oversized lot. That's why people buy those lots. They recognize that it's much larger than normal. They want more stuff. They want more buildings where they can put their stuff. So we try as a first cut to be pretty accommodating, and several appeals have been granted by the board in the past which allow greater size of accessory buildings than what's allowed by this provision. But again, based on the comments, it does appear that one option to try to be as objective as possible with this would be to perhaps grant a variance allowing some increase in the overall size but not to grant any variance that allows an increase in the building footprint. The PVA record to show the building footprint to be about 2100 square feet. So if you restricted this one story building to 2100 square feet that would comply with the first part of this the building footprint restriction but would still allow a fairly sizable increase in the size. Now, I'm putting that out there as a possible place to start some additional discussion. I have no idea if the applicant will be agreeable to that, and I don't have any idea of the people that have objected if that's enough of a reduction to satisfy most of their concerns, but it might be a really good place to start for discussion. Let me ask you this, Mr. Mars. Given the testimony we've heard today, would the staff change its recommendation? I think based on what we've heard, we would agree there needs to be a reduction in the size based on numerous concerns, yes. It's hard to pinpoint exactly that the section doesn't give you any guidance about how to adjust things based on things like lot size and all that. So you pretty much have to rely on the broad context of what the additional concerns are. Does anyone else have a question for the planning staff? Then we also have engineering staff here if you have any questions regarding any of those issues. Yes, I'd like to know more about the septic system from staff, if I could get some help on that from someone, and how serious is this depending on the stormwater runoff and how it affects the septic system? I'm assuming that the redoing of the septic system that the new owners did when they bought the property was permitted by the Department of Health. I don't know that for sure, but I'm assuming that's the case. but all of that review and any conditions about whether or not animals could graze over that area or a building could be constructed over any kind of a drainage feature, that's all Department of Health issues. So we just can't really comment in detail about that. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone on a regular basis from the Department of Health here to be able to comment to those type of issues. I think that was an issue that I would be concerned about, And I guess regardless of the size of the building, if this is still a problem, I think we need to know that. But if we don't have somebody to talk about that, then I think probably it's a moot point. Any more questions for staff? Well, I will invite the applicant back to the podium if you want to make any brief comments and respond. to the opponent's objections and then to what Mr. Marks has just told the board. Sure. You know, I did listen closely to, you know, the comments that have been mentioned, and I'll just kind of hit a highlight. Somewhere about the size of the building, there was that. And actually, I think the spreadsheet that was shown a couple times is one I believe I created and put in my application. just to demonstrate that there are large buildings in the area up and down Swigur. And I did pull that right off the PVA website, but just when I look in the area, there were buildings that are in the area in addition to those. Actually, I won't mention them by name today. There's a neighbor here that stood up, and they have buildings that are not on there. But I didn't list that when I put that on there, so I'll just let you know. There's more going on there, I think, on Swigert as far as people's buildings than what's listed there. But there are plenty of big buildings in the area. As far as the flooding, I can imagine there are, again, a lot of buildings in the area. There's a lot of concern about the flooding. Nobody here stood up wanting to tear down the building that they have over the concern of flooding. So I don't want to flood anybody's home. We want to be good neighbors, but I think we can put this up. and there was a contingency in there. I need to go talk with someone there who was at the urban government here to address that concern. I'm willing to do that. We're not trying to flood anybody's home. As far as there was some talk about the horses and stuff. I'd like to address that. Please do. My mule, he is a mule. His name is Steve. He's 11 hands tall and he's 24 years old. His partner is Buttercup. She is a 13-year-old pony who is 12 hands tall. They do graze over the top of the current leach field, and they also have additional pasture behind that. And I have made accommodations for them periodically throughout the year to be transferred to another location so that that field does not get depleted. It is not eroded. I do not want my ponies subjected to any issues. I don't want to have an issue with my leach field because that's a considerable expense for us to repair that should the ponies damage it. It will be monitored closely, and I have no intent of harming my ponies by not taking care of them properly. So I've been in equine veterinary medicine for over 20 years, so I'm fully aware of what is required to maintain these ponies. There's horses behind us. There's one of the ladies here. There's horses across the street. I mean, there's horses down the street, so if there's that much of a health concern, you may not want to live on Swiger because there's a lot of horses. Is there any other questions? I did also have a letter that I didn't know if you got a chance to see that was in my application, but I can also give you a copy of this, too. Does anyone on the board have any questions? I think my question to you, Mr. and Mrs. Sampson. You know, obviously, there's a lot of concern on the other side regarding, to me, I think the big issue here that we can address is the size of your building. I can't address, I don't think we can address much else here. What would you be willing, you know, to reduce the size based on neighborhood reaction? I mean, I know this area very well. I'm from the north side, grew up out Russell Cave Road, and took Swigert every day to school at Bryan Station. I know this is an odd, it's not odd, it's a beautiful street, beautiful area. Yes, sir. But it's diverse in the property types. You know, I moved into a historic neighborhood. I'm very understanding of what it's like to build. I build a garage in the historic neighborhood. I initially wanted a three-car garage. The neighbors wanted a one-car garage. We settled on a two-car garage. And we're all happy, and we still see each other every day. I think a lot of this, you have enough space where you might not always see your neighbors every day. I unfortunately do not. I see them. They're very close. But a big thing here is obviously when you're new to the neighborhood, for me at least, it was nice to somehow try to accommodate everyone, and that's what I wanted to do. And I think that's what you'd like to do if you'd like to stay here. And I don't mean to give advice, but I think what Mr. Mark said is a good place to start, and I think that's probably what we'll have to make a decision on. so if to me if you're open to that that's something that we could probably get to if not then I'd probably lean to where I would I would I would settle and disapprove yes sir I mean I we didn't come down here I mean this is what we've you know what we obviously what we asked for you know we didn't come down here it's not obviously an ultimatum or you know we're drawing the line on this this this exact square footage I mean we do need a sizable building I mean they they it's 1186 you know it just doesn't work well for me at all I do think it's a hardship but you know the third glasses 3420 I mean you know if he recommended I think it was 2100 I mean And that feels a little bit smart to me, but I'm not saying that there couldn't be a compromise. Mr. Forster, do you have comments? It was answered. I wasn't going to ask about a compromise, if there could be one. Any other questions from the board? My question, Mr. Chair, would be whether we can try to make a compromise here tonight or whether it would be better for them to come back with a different proposal. I would say the proposal on the table, I would find it hard to – I would not support this proposal as listed. I don't necessarily know unless the – I would strongly doubt that the neighbors would be agreeable to 2,100 square feet. And so I would suggest that a plan needs to be redone and brought back for us at a future date. So I don't know. And I think that if we were to deny the motion, the square footage to probably get approval would be of such a nature that I think it would be a completely different application. So I don't think they'd be barred by the 12, but I don't know, Ms. Jones? Generally, if you all disapprove something, there's a time frame as to when it can be brought back without a substantial or significant change. So that could be problematic. If there is some chance for a compromise that everybody is willing to engage in, I would just suggest we not try to do it on the fly in the course of this meeting. That usually doesn't produce a good result for anyone. If you're so inclined and everyone is agreeable to that, then we may continue this hearing to another day, which would allow what is in the record to be in the record and for them to come back. If Mr. Marks agrees with that, we could do that. That's fine, but we haven't heard from the neighbors yet about how close that 2100 is to being acceptable to them. Let me add part of my comments. I don't think I could approve the size that's been suggested, but I would certainly be sympathetic to something smaller than that. So a new proposal would seem to me to be the way to go. I guess let's hear quickly from the opponents. and I guess the easiest thing would be if you could have one person kind of come up and discuss whether we should postpone this and let them come up with a different plan, which would be my recommendation. I think we're at a little bit of a loss because we don't have one spokesperson. No, we understand. So I live right next door. I haven't even met these people yet. Would I concede to 2,100? I might, just because they're my neighbors. I don't want to, I mean, I haven't even been introduced yet, and that might be an olive branch. But I absolutely don't think all these people that have spent all day here would necessarily feel the same day. I think we need time to understand it. And that's the reason we would, what our recommendation would likely be is have a postponement. Mr. Mark's, do you think 30 or 60 days would be? Make sure we use the word continuance. Continuance, sorry. If legally we could keep the – I mean, I'm speaking just for myself. I don't have any interest in being unnecessarily – to impede the Samson from a quick resolution, so I don't want them to be barred for coming back for six or eight months. That doesn't seem fair to me. So if we could word it so they could get through quickly, that makes sense. Mr. Miller, please come up to the podium. I would like somebody to tell me exactly what the requirement would be to put a building there. I haven't heard. There's a formula based on the square footage of the house, and if you looked at that picture, there was a garage on the end of the house which has been converted to living space, and that's why they drive around that little slot for the driveway, where the driveway would be. But there's got to be a number that you have that says that could be put on this lot, whether it's 1,500 square feet for a structure or it's 1,200 feet. I don't know what that is. I'd like for somebody to figure that out and tell us. Well, Mr. Miller, my understanding is that according to the initial calculation by the staff, it's 1,186 square feet, and they wanted a larger building, which is why they're in front of us asking our permission to allow a larger building. So 1,100 feet is what's approved? 1,186 they can do without coming before us. Anything above that, they have to ask our permission. I never heard that number until just now, and I'm glad that we hear that because if that's what's allowed, then that's what's allowed in my mind. Well, that's the reason we have this board. because there are often times where they come before us asking for a larger size. But now the 2,100-square-foot number is being floated around, and it's like, well, that's 1,000 square feet bigger than what's already been approved. Correct, and we wouldn't be approving that today. What we are going to do is do a continuance for 30 to 60 days for the Sampson's with our recommendation talking to the neighbors and trying to come up with a size that would fit within the, would satisfy them and everybody else and staff, and then come back before us with an abbreviated hearing in a month or two? Well, from what I've heard, and I've been here all day, like everybody, there is considerable concern about a lot of issues. The square footage of this structure is really a starting point in my mind. And if 1,100 feet is what is allowable and you guys agree to that, then any request for anything more than that should be denied. Based on what the testimony of all the people that have come here today to tell you about. Well, there are several issues. The first one is underneath the statute in the staff's calculation, they could build a garage for 1,186 feet or a storage building without coming before us. Anything above that has to come. So if they wanted 1,187 feet, they would be here. If they wanted 20,000 square feet, they would need to come before us. And so the issue is whether or not the neighbors and the applicant can come up with a solution that everyone finds agreeable in the next 30 to 60 days, a new plan, and then bring that before us for us to look at it in the future rather than us making it. Well, we're not going to rule on the 2,100 square foot plan today. The question is, is everyone agreeable to give the Samson's some time in which to maybe come up with a different plan that would be more agreeable to the neighbors? That's not my decision. I just live up the street. Yeah, that's really up to us. So, okay, Dr. Guise here. Does anyone else want to speak on behalf of the opponents before the board has a discussion and makes determination? I would just like to reiterate, the Samson's knew about the restrictions before they bought property. Those restrictions, that applies to the maximum building they could build. So this is not new or this is not different. And the people who lived in this area have all lived under, especially the neighbors, under those restrictions. My property value and the property value of our neighbors will greatly decline if you allow beyond this restriction. How would it look if I try to sell my property if someone walks into my backyard and looks at a building like this? The property value has to be considered in this decision. And the restrictions that are currently written for the size of the building were well known before the property was bought. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carver. If he's permitted the additional or the structure of 1186 square feet, is that what you said? Yes, ma'am. What about the two existing structures? Would they have to go? They would need to come down, correct. Come down. They would need to come down. As to any additional increase in runoff, could there be a requirement for him to take care of increase? Right now what we are discussing is whether or not we're going to continue this for another 30 to 60 days, allow the Sampson's time to come up with a new plan, and then the time for the neighbors to see that new plan, because the plan that's before us, it's not going to get the votes today. So any other questions, Ms. Carver? No, I think so. So right now we're looking at whether we're going to continue this. Ms. Clark, if we keep this extremely brief, we have more, and we're really getting out of the germane of what we want to make a determination on. Yeah, you're here to decide whether to grant a variance, grant relief from the zoning ordinance. Well, right now I'm here to talk about it. And continuance, is that the right one? Continuance. Continuance, whether continuance is appropriate or whether it's time for a decision. First thing I would say, it's certainly for the neighbors to decide what size they might welcome as a variance beyond what the regulations allow. And it would help immeasurably to have a complete and accurate plan. You've just heard testimony that the garage, what is the existing garage on the existing house in the PVA record, is used as living space. One of the confusions in the plan is where is the garage, what's the garage, whether it's living space or a garage. If that is living space and used as living space, where is the garage? And the garage needs a driveway. So a complete and accurate plan. Yeah, Ms. Clark, what I would like to say. is for you to make these address these issues with mr. marks and staff during the planning process and for us to I'm ready to make a determination and have a motion on continuing this for 60 days and yet the neighbors appeal to you as the board for a decision in it when the 60 days we will make a decision but We think that extension to try to work it out is reasonable. We have a continuance. I'm only speaking, but I am now speaking for a population. For the neighbors that live on either side, we are willing to grant a continuance to give the Sampson 60 days or 30 days, whatever you recommend, to try to work it out with us. Thank you, Ms. Woodward. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to entertain a motion for a continuance until our, would this be August, which would be, and what I would suggest for the Samson is after we have this motion in the hallway, get contact information and be in touch with your neighbors to try to work a plan out over the next two months. but when would the date if we go for the two months that would be August 25th come on up Ms. Sampson what's that if possible I would like to resolve this in 30 days if we could what's the 30 date or July July 28th okay The Chair will entertain a motion for a continuance. I move that we approve a continuance for PLNBOA 17-39, John Sanson's request for variance to increase the allowable area of an accessory building from 1186 square feet to 3420 square feet in order to construct a 2700 square foot accessory building with a 720-square-foot open air lean-to structure to one end in the single-family residential R1B zone at 280 Swigert Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I have a second? That's to July 28th. I'd like to amend that motion for the continuance for the July 28th meeting of 2017. At 1.30. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Wait one second. Do I have a second? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Ms. Woodward, come on up. I appreciate you need to move on with your weekend, but what government resources are available to us if we have questions or concerns? Are there staff? Mr. Marks and his staff. Okay, thank you. Yes. Who would be the direct contact person for the neighbors? Autumn? Do you have a business card with you? I don't know. Sorry about that. She may not like me next month. Okay, well that concludes that hearing. Well, I want to say, I am assuming that those who wanted to speak to the Cohen brothers but didn't really have any objections are probably regretting their decision to stick around all afternoon. I won't take no more than 35 or 40 minutes. Keep going. Yeah. Don't hang around here. I'm going to call up our next hearing, which is the administrative review, the PLN BOA 17-26 Cohen Brothers. Mr. Chair, is there any chance we could take a five-minute? Okay. It looks like we would like to have a five-minute break. I would like to say Mr. Forster will need to leave here in about 25 minutes, but we'll still have a quorum. We'll still have a quorum. All right, we're in recess. Thank you. Our climate will adhere to all recommendations and conditions put forth in the document. My name is Will Carley, I represent Algar Incorporated, who will be the leasee for Coen Brothers. I'll also be speaking on their behalf, as well as Brennan Lawrence, CFO of Algar Incorporated. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, I believe that if you guys take a seat for a second, I believe we have a couple gentlemen here that are neighbors. Could we make sure everyone's mic is on when they're speaking? My name is Gary Hamilton. I live at 637 St. Anthony Drive. I grew up across the railroad track from the piece of property in question. My main concern is security. We've had big issues with people using our property to get to their property for theft. They've all been pretty well addressed. I have no real big issues with that. The other issue is the Sundays. There is no business on 7th Street except for the liquor stores and the convenience stores that are open on Sunday. the other these people's competition bluegrass automotive parts they close half a day on saturday so i fail to see the need on sunday hours you know we should have one day where we don't have people back there beating and banging the other issue that i have and the sunday is we have a church that is right up the street from us that backs up to these people's property there's churches all up and down 7th street at least three that i can think of that would be affected with a lot of traffic i'm not saying that they'll have a lot of traffic but it should be something that you all consider uh thank you all thank you mr hamilton you'd like to speak my name is larry hamilton i live at 690 east loudon avenue We've met with the pull-apart people. We've worked out most of the details. My concern is the Sundays. And also, too, I don't really want an auto salvage yard and a scrap business. It has to be one or the other, or I'm opposed to it. If you have both, and then that puts undue influence on the neighborhood, it brings a lot more cars coming and going into inner city. I used to be president of the neighborhood association for 12 years on Loudon Avenue, and me and a group of other people, mostly other people, we worked hard to get the road project and work hard to get the north end looking decent. I think that this auto salvage yard is going to be much less obtrusive or intrusive, losing my king's English, and I'm kind of for it. But I do not think that they should be allowed to take in scrap metal. These gentlemen behind me, they're representing the auto salvage yard. The Cohing brothers don't even have a representative here. And they're wanting to take in the scrap metal too. And I don't see a dual usage on it. Also I'm opposed if we take in scrap metal on other parcels of property that are not zoned for it. Currently, this piece of property 757 is grandfathered in. Right now, I have a dispute with planning because they're taking in Ferris Metal on a different lot. This is an I-1 zone, and I filed a complaint on it, and I'm not having any luck with it. To me, if it's Ferris Metal, you take it in on an I-2 lot or a legal nonconforming use. If it's not a legal lot, then you shouldn't take it in. You know, Mr. Marks has told me that they're sorting it out, like they bring in all this ferrous metal and copper metal and aluminum and put it in a big pile and dig through it and sort it out. Or that's the way that I'm understanding it. Well, that's not the way it is. So I think that if they're going to take in scrap metal, it either needs to be at 757, or if they're going to have auto salvage, it needs to be at 757. But it can't be both. You know, and I don't think they should be allowed to be taken in scrap metal anywhere but 757 or their yard out on Old Frankfort Pike. And as far as the Sunday thing goes, I can't think of an auto salvage yard in Fayette County, or let alone anywhere in Kentucky except for Jefferson County that's open on Sundays, where you can go and buy used auto parts. And I'm just wanting four days a month is all I'm wanting. Mr. Hamilton, I pulled up on the PVA. I do see where you live right behind here. What is the noise factor when operations are occurring on the current use? Well, under current use, well, right now they're not taking in any metal at all except from small trucks, and they're unloading it over off of Rock Castle. So the last two or three years, guys, has been wonderful. But six, seven, eight years ago was hell. Trucks was coming in at all hours of the night, dumping their loads. You couldn't call the police department because by the time the cops come, the truck would be gone. The smoking, where they were burning, they were taking cutting torches and cutting big oily pieces of metal up into smaller pieces of metal. You know, constantly. And the fire department in Fayette County would not come to my house over smoke. You know, I had to call the clean air people in Frankfurt 50 or 60 times, and I'm not exaggerating. I called them so much I didn't have to tell them my name. You know, I called them that many times, and finally they had a file, and they told me that the Coheen brothers had to do something about the burning. They needed to do something to contain the smoke, you know. But you're comfortable with the current plan as to that issue? Well, currently they have no business. But if their business ever come back in a big way, I would be right back to where I was seven or eight years ago. But I am happy with the auto salvage. Me and my brother went up. We toured it. I think it would be a much better use for that property in the inner city. But you and your brother are concerned about noise on Sundays? We are very concerned about noise. Yeah, on Sunday we're concerned about noise seven days a week. I understand. I was on the noise committee for four years. That's how strongly I feel about noise. You've seen where that went in the city of Lexington. Chamber of Commerce. But I don't think they should be allowed to take scrap metal anywhere except for the appropriate zone. And I will be back in touch with planning if that continues on I-1 lot. All right? Thanks, guys. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. I guess the first thing I'd like to address is the noise, or actually the operations on Sunday. I think I'm in agreement with the Hamiltons that I personally don't want an operation in my backyard going on Sunday morning, but I'll let you guys speak to that issue. I can understand that. I think a lot of what this is, too, is us introducing our business model. Basically, what we do, it's described as a junkyard, but it's really an aftermarket auto parts sale. It's like AutoZone, but it's cheaper, it's recycled, and it's available to people on any daily basis, just like Home Depot would be or AutoZone. We don't crush on the weekends. We don't do any of the heavy machinery or anything. It would literally be like the flea market, you know, walking into a space, being able to go from a booth to booth, except ours are car to car, and being able to pull off or have staff find you the carburetor or the motor that you want and be able to buy it there. And the reason it's important for us on Sundays is a lot of guys that do, you know, fix up their cars or work on, you know, to restore automobiles, like the gentleman with the 30 cars in his garage in the other case, you know, he could come down there on a Sunday. That's when they work on them. So that's why it's important for our business model to have that. I think my concern would be is if you have the cars and people are picking parts from cars, I doubt you're using a soccer wrench by hand to take those parts off. So you have to use some kind of machinery to remove some of these parts, and that would be my concern is when I go and get my oil changed, the hydraulic soccer wrench is pretty loud. And I'm assuming that's what you guys will be using, tools of that nature. If I can address this, Mr. Chairman, the individuals or the customers come to our facility, bring their tools with them. They're hand tools, so we don't run any heavy equipment, impact wrenches. There's no compressors running on a Sunday. As Will mentioned, we use what we call a loader that does not run on Sunday. so it's really foot traffic and hand tools what individuals will bring in with them to remove the parts so it would be a socket wrench or any other smaller tools that that customer brings to to their needs to remove that part so we don't provide any of the tools they're bringing them in with them and they carry those in so it's not it's really what we call foot traffic mr chairman where you know as well described if you're going into a store it's just folks walking around it's It's not any heavy equipment being run during those hours. I have a question. How would you go about if it's, you mentioned you was going to get engines. You've got to have certain tools to remove an engine from an existing car. So, I mean, you said that the people would bring their own tools to do that. That seemed to be pretty noisy, and I've done it before. Is there a way, a better way to do it now? Well, the one thing we do provide is it's a mechanical chain pulley system to secure the engine, but they would use their hand tools, what they would bring with them, to uncouple or disconnect the engine from the vehicle. But the only thing that we provide them is a pulley system to secure that engine. So it's a non-motorized device. Let me say, I agree that we need some guarantee, I think, just that this is not going to be a dual use. And I think that was my principal objection, that it would be a junkyard or whatever you want to call it, not a scrap yard. I think that's very, very important. Mr. Clark, can I address that? Yes, absolutely. I'm sorry, number 11, I believe, and recommendations definitely addresses that. We are more than happy to adhere to that condition. We had a little bit of confusion first with our agreement with the landlord, but they have now said, hey, yeah, if that's what you guys want, that's what needs to be done here. If they want to revert back to that use at any time, they know they have to come to you. We will only be doing a pull-apart operation on this property 757. That's what I'm wanting to hear. Thank you. So after this is approved, Mr. Marks, the current use will no longer be a use once they initiate the pull apart, so the scrapyard will be gone? Well, I hate to be real technical, but just to avoid any future problems, after the new use is initiated. Which we're looking at the spring of 2018. Then, yeah, they could not revert back unless they came back to the board with an appeal. And that's in agreement with Cohen and Algar. We're just talking about 757. Right. And so the current operations on the other parcels? They would all, I would just. But they would. So we're only dealing with 757? Only 757. It's the only property amongst Cohen's parcels that would allow this use, because we're going from one legal nonconforming to another in the I-1, but this is an I-2 zone because of its past history of these kinds of operations. Okay. But again, our operation is going to be cleaner. It's better for the neighborhood. There's no lighting that's going to impact the neighbors. We don't have an outdoor sound system. We're going to set up security measures that hopefully will increase the safety for the neighbors. We're going to gravel in that yard. We'll do some frontage improvements to the existing lot that we have. And what you will see there will be transformative compared to what is there now. If you want to put your – Mr. Clark was asking if we have the right to adjust the hours of operation, and I believe, Ms. Jones, we would have some say if we do not like, for example, condition number three, the nine to four on Saturday and Sunday. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question. No problem. On condition number three, we have hours of operations from nine to four on Saturday and Sunday. We do have the ability to modify those if we choose. Yes, you can change the conditions. So, Mr. Clark, do you have any comments to that particular issue? I just wanted to know whether we had an option to do that. I understand the conflict of the Sunday morning, and perhaps we could adjust the hours to afternoon. Is there a way, Ms. Jones, for us to put some kind of, for at least the Sunday operations, an ability for this to come back before us if we have noise complaints from the neighbors? as to at least the Sunday operations, because I don't want to necessarily interrupt the business operations, but at the same time, I don't want to approve something, and then the neighbors are stuck with a noisy operation on Sunday mornings, and there's nothing we can do about it. Well, I mean, it can always come back to you, either if you all incorporate that into your findings. We've done that before where you put a six-month or a one-year time frame that, you know, you just get a report back to you as to how things are going along and if all the conditions are being complied with. Of course, any complaint would certainly not necessarily come back to you but be addressed to our zoning enforcement division. However, if, you know, the zoning enforcement is only going to look at it in terms of what the conditions are on the use at the time to determine if there's any violation of those. So how about, would we be able to, for example, because I don't want, clearly the tenant is going to make some capital outlays. And so the idea of us coming back in six months and revoking the permit in total would be something I would not be in favor of. But could we adjust maybe just conditional three that the Sunday operations from 9 to 4 would be up for review? Yes, you can do that if you'd like, you know, and put some kind of a time frame on it that, you know, So I guess really it wouldn't make any difference until they actually open within so many months after that that it would come back to you all to review and determine whether or not the hours are causing any difficulty or adversely impacting the neighborhood. Would the applicant be agreeable to something of that nature as to the Sunday operations? I'm not totally in disagreement, I guess, but I have to understand a little more clearly. If you all are talking about impacting our weekend hours, that's how we actually, that's when we do the most of our retail business. It would not be probably in our interest any longer then, and this will stay the lot with the ferrous metal, with the burning and all the other things the neighbors don't like, and we can do something else. However, if it's going to be a certain period of time where if it's within reason, because we do feel strongly that we know our own, you know, we know how much noise our lots make. But I would like to hear what you're. I would think something along the lines of you guys come back before us six months after you begin actual operations. and for us just to make sure that your operations aren't making the noise levels on Sunday, sales that are disrupting the neighbors. Post? Post our business starting? Yes. You said pre? Post. Okay, post. Gotcha. Post. So essentially us to evaluate. You approve this today, and then when we kick off in the spring of 2018, just for a hypothetical, April 1st, we come back on October 1st, correct? And then we'll say, hey, do we have any complaints for the neighbors? Correct. As to your Sunday operations. Yes, I think. And I should say, even if we do have complaints for the neighbors, that doesn't mean that we would force you to change. Right. I think we can say that, honestly. Okay, Mr. Clark, that's what I wanted to clarify is what's the impact of that discussion? Because I can tell you we operate in multiple states and have Sunday hours and don't have any complaints on record for over 10 years. So I understand this is a new venture for the City of Lexington, but our experience in other places, we don't have any complaints. Yeah, your use on Sundays would not automatically be revoked. We would just want to hear about the operations, maybe if the Hamiltons have any issues, they can bring those to our attention. That does not mean we will then revoke your ability to operate on Sunday, but we would entertain that as a possibility. Okay. Yeah, we'd be happy to come back in six months and provide that to you. Sir? I'm thinking more like in 10 years, but I'll negotiate to five. I think right now we're going to do six. I think we ought to get back together in 10 years and talk about it. I don't think six months is long enough. I made an offer to these gentlemen. I mean, if we do away with the scrap metal completely, then they can operate on Sunday. I can only say that we're not here to discuss any of these other parcels of property with I-1 uses. and the uses that go on, I'm not a representative for that piece, so I can't speak to that. Mr. Hamilton, we're only talking about the 757 property today. But I understand you're concerned about the other parts of the operation, but that's not before us today. So with that being said, Ms. Jones, do you have any proposed language for us to modify number three? And what I'd like to do is for the applicant and the opponent to sit down, let Ms. Jones maybe jot down what she thinks we could revise that condition number three to B. And then for the case that wanted to be postponed or withdrawn, we hear that one, and then we'll come back to you guys in a second. Okay. So do we need to go talk to her? She'll come back there, and then we'll – thank you, gentlemen. Okay, so now we've got, I think, a PLNBOA 1741, Thomas W. Miller. We just got a letter from Mr. Miller withdrawing that appeal. Okay, that works for me. See, the system worked, Mr. Marks. Yes, great. Okay. Okay. Our next item is a revocation hearing for C-2015-57. I see Mr. Murphy is here. If you'd like to introduce yourself. And I don't know if you guys are looking for a continuance or you want to have the hearing today. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy representing Dr. Schroyer and Charles C. Schroyer, his wife. Dr. Schroyer is here. I think we've come to an agreement with the staff on this, so I think we can handle this pretty quickly if we proceed. Mr. Marks? That's correct. We have reached an agreement. They are agreeable to not continuing with any type of routine boarding of pets, mostly dogs is the issue. There is one exception to that, that dogs that have special needs, medical needs, would be allowed to be boarded there in case something came up. And we're agreeable to allowing that as kind of an exception. It's not all that unusual. We are aware of other facilities that have that kind of exception. So we're okay with that. But the routine, what originally started as doggy daycare, that's just not going to happen anymore, and they're agreeable to that. That was the issue, is the routine boarding of animals that weren't receiving medical treatment. We did not receive a report on this particular item. Not a written report, no. That's correct. So is this now essentially being worked out at a staff level, or do we need to have a modification to the? It's been worked out. Okay, so we're done. Okay. For the record, it would be nice for Mr. Murphy to give a brief verification of what I just said. That works for me. Mr. Murphy, if you may proceed. What we talked about was, of course, the doggy daycare is not going to be done at the site anymore. The boarding, overnight boarding of animals, we discussed this back a year and a half ago when this was approved. And this is an animal hospital. They do board animals overnight after surgical procedures to observe them. We can keep it a little bit lower. And this is routinely done in veterinary clinics. There are dogs, and it's usually dogs, it may be other animals, I'll be saying dogs, but I mean all animals, that have chronic medical condition. That may be heart failure, kidney failure, that sort of thing, that families want to be monitored on a medical basis while they're gone because they have special needs rather than just get them to the dog sitter who may have experience, may not have any experience. So veterinarians routinely board those dogs, even if they haven't been in for a surgery the night before, but they have a chronic heart failure, kidney failure, diabetes, that sort of thing, glaucoma need regular medicine to be administered by a professional. So what we've agreed to staff is that those dogs can be boarded overnight, even though they're not just coming off a surgery. But other animals just, if I have a healthy animal and I call up and say, well, can you keep this while I'm gone? No, that cannot be done on the site here. And Mr. Murphy, I'm assuming your client is agreeable for the staff to be able to ensure that is occurring? Yes, of course it's a conditional use and all conditional uses are subject to the one year review by the staff. They all get reviewed every year. I think there was concern when we heard this last month that the doctors weren't being as responsive as the staff would have liked to the complaints that were being issued. I think that may have been the case, and I think there was a little over-enthusiasm when they moved to their new building. They just moved into this new building. It's the old Lexington Clinic building, and they got a little too enthusiastic about what they were doing. Mr. Murphy, the dogs that would be boarded overnight, is this an inside or outside operation? It's inside. Inside. Inside. Because I think maybe that was part of the problem, the dogs were outside. I'm assuming that they'll be outdoors to use the facilities. Yeah, right. Okay. Anybody else have any? Well, thank you, Mr. Murphy, for putting that on the record. We appreciate it. Good luck with the operation. No pun intended. Okay, do we have revised language for the Coen Brothers application? Yes, sir. Have a great holiday weekend. Ms. Jones, I'm fine with that language. And just to make the record clear that operations means the new operations for the pull-apart is what we're discussing. And is the applicant agreeable to the modified condition 3? The applicant is agreeable to the modified condition 3. Do any of the board members want to have any comments prior to the chair entertaining a motion? Okay, hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move to approve the LNBOA 1726 Cohen Brothers Lexington Properties. the administrative appeal to change one legal non-conforming use scrap band storage to another legal non-conforming use junkyard in a light industrial zone at 757 7th Street with the addition of a six-month review of the Sunday hours. So I have a first to approve the application based upon the conditions as modified today. Do I have a second? I second. Mr. Forrester seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Seen and hearing none. Congratulations. Good luck with your new operation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Board. Thank you. All right, and we're going to keep moving quickly along. does the board do any board members wish to present anything at the hearing for our discussion staff tammy do you have anything you want to add to keep this going and okay with that being said our next meeting will be on july 28 2017 i wish everyone a happy and safe fourth of july weekend i look forward to seeing you next month thank you I'm sorry.