# RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING - October 16, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 16, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4370 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4370?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-10-16 - **Last revised**: October 16, 2017 - **Length**: 3,253 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 Rural Land Management Board convened on October 16, 2017, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber, with Mayor Jim Gray presiding as the meeting's presiding officer. The board addressed four agenda items during the session, taking a total of four votes on various matters related to rural land management and administrative business. The meeting focused primarily on farm infrastructure requests and procedural matters, with the board approving the minutes from their previous August 30, 2017 meeting and considering two separate farm infrastructure proposals. No public comments were heard during this session, indicating a streamlined meeting focused on board business and pending applications before the Rural Land Management Board. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included four motions, all of which passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Minutes Approval** The board approved the August 30, 2017 meeting minutes by voice vote with no opposition. **Farm 27-2002 Housing and Infrastructure Request** A motion to approve housing and farm infrastructure for Farm 27-2002 was seconded by Dennis and passed with one abstention. The approval included specific conditions limiting construction to 2 tenant houses and requiring NRCS Conservationist approval before proceeding. **Farm 25-2001 Office Construction** Mary Ann motioned to approve construction of a farm office for Farm 25-2001, with John providing the second. The motion passed by voice vote with the condition that NRCS Conservationist approval must be obtained prior to construction. **Ordinance Review Committee Appointment** John motioned to nominate Lucy VanMeter to the Ordinance Review Committee. The nomination was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote with no conditions attached. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, so individual member voting records were not recorded. The meeting demonstrated unanimous or near-unanimous support for all agenda items, with only one abstention noted on the Farm 27-2002 infrastructure request. ## Appointments The council took action on one appointment during the meeting. • **Lucy VanMeter** was appointed to the Ordinance Review Committee. The appointment was processed as part of the council's regular business to fill positions on various municipal committees and boards. ## Motion to approve the August 30, 2017 Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered approval of the minutes from their August 30, 2017 meeting as agenda item II. The motion was presented for discussion and vote without any recorded speakers or debate on the content of the minutes. The minutes were approved by the board without any documented concerns or amendments to the record from the previous meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## Farm 27-2002, Kelly and David Baugh, Housing and Farm Infrastructure Request [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered a request from Kelly and David Baugh regarding housing and farm infrastructure for Farm 27-2002. Beth served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The request involved both residential housing components and agricultural infrastructure development on the designated farm property. Following the presentation and board discussion, the request was approved with conditions. The specific details of the conditions imposed by the board and the exact nature of the housing and infrastructure components were not detailed in the available materials. The approval allows the Baughs to proceed with their proposed development plans for Farm 27-2002, subject to meeting the stipulated requirements set forth by the board during their deliberation. ## Farm 25-2001 (tracts 4 & 5), Reiley McDonald, Farm Infrastructure Request [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed a farm infrastructure request from Reiley McDonald for Farm 25-2001, specifically concerning tracts 4 and 5. The request involved the construction of a farm office on the property. Beth served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The board examined the proposed farm office construction project and its compliance with applicable regulations and requirements. Following their review and discussion, the board approved McDonald's farm infrastructure request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met, though the exact details of these conditions were not specified in the available meeting materials. The approval allows McDonald to proceed with the farm office construction on tracts 4 and 5 of Farm 25-2001, subject to fulfilling the stipulated requirements set forth by the board. ## Ordinance Review Committee [timestamp: 00:00] The board addressed agenda item III.C regarding an appointment to the Ordinance Review Committee. The board nominated Lucy VanMeter to serve on the committee. The appointment was approved by the board without recorded discussion or debate. No concerns were raised regarding the nomination, and no additional speakers participated in this agenda item. The outcome resulted in Lucy VanMeter's successful appointment to the Ordinance Review Committee. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the August 30, 2017 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the housing and farm infrastructure request for Farm 27-2002 with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the construction of a farm office for Farm 25-2001 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Nominate Lucy VanMeter to the Ordinance Review Committee --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ ¶¶ I'm not sure. Okay, let's call the meeting to order. First item on the agenda is the motion on the minutes. Chairman Bibb, if everybody has had a chance to look at the minutes, I move we approve them. Click your motion in on the screen. Just click motion. What do I do? Thank you. I have a motion by Marianne, a second by Phillips, so we should have a vote come up here. Okay. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we have a new business, Farm 27-2002, infrastructure request. I think Beth is going to take us through this. So Farm 27-2002 is comprised of 5644, 5645, and 5695 Sofawell Road. It is 86 acres. It is a horse farm. There are new owners named Kelly and David Ball who purchased the farm just in the last couple of weeks. The date of the easement was October 2, 2003, and it was submitted to PDR by Elizabeth and Herman Playforth. It is a federal easement. There is a cemetery on the property that is protected, and that is indicated on the building map. There will be demolition. There will be two barns, as indicated on the attached building map, and one of those will be rebuilt. their residential requests include a primary residence of 3,000 square feet a tenant house of 2,000 square feet and a modular home of 2,000 square feet and their infrastructure request they have an ex the existing 40 by 96 barn will be demolished and replaced with a workshop slash hay barn that will equal 2,400 square feet and be 40 by 60. They do not plan to do any paving right now they said all driveways and parking areas are gravel there is no impervious surface limit because this is one of the earlier easements the building map is attached for you all this is permitted in the easement housing environment infrastructure are permitted in the easement In addition, I consulted with the Divisions of Planning and Building Inspection and learned that Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding mobile homes does not apply to modular homes since they have a permanent foundation. The staff notes new owners are moving here from Indiana and have school-aged children. They will be adding housing and upgrading the farm infrastructure in order to make this a more active horse farm. An aerial photo of the farm in its current state is also attached in your all's packets. The staff recommendation is approval of one primary residence but limit the farm to two tenant houses rather than three as requested. This will allow one tenant house per 40 acres as permitted by the Division of Building Inspection. Staff recommends allowing the landowner to determine which of the three, one existing and two proposed tenant houses to eliminate in accordance with all applicable building and zoning guidelines and restrictions. The conservationist recommendation on your all's memo, it says pending. They actually, NRCS reached out to me right before and said that everything is fine with this. And I will forward their notes on to the landowners. The pertinent easement language, prohibited uses in Section 4C, For C, you are not allowed to build unless it is for permitted agricultural or housing or farm infrastructure. In the reserved rights in Section 5B, landowners have the right to construct a primary residence, and this farm does not currently have one, as well as necessary tenant housing. and in reserved rights in Section 5K, it does allow landowners to add farm infrastructure as needed. And I just put, in case you all had any questions about a mobile home versus modular, I attached some information on that as well. And that is it. If you all want to look, if you've had a chance to look at that building site location map, it does show you where all of these would be. I have a question. Okay. Beth, did it really matter as far as the easement is concerned whether or not they have two or three mobile homes or tenant homes? I mean, the easement didn't make any difference, did it? They were not allowed to put more than two tenant homes in. Well, actually, it's my understanding that with zoning laws, the zoning laws don't specifically say for tenant houses. they do say that for mobile homes they limit it to one per 40 acres when I talked to building inspection they told me that they have always followed a one per 40 acres so they wanted to stick with that and so I called Frank to talk to him about what how the Planning Commission has handled this and he suggested that they too have followed the one per 40 acres as a general guideline yeah frank go ahead if this was a more intensive agricultural use that's why i don't want us to get into this is our policy regardless let's say this was a vegetable growing or something else that's highly labor intensive then you can make a case for that third house for for help what you're trying to avoid is and that's why i would suggest that they don't call it promote's manager's house they just take the manager out and say before it's tenant house and and the reason for that then you get in that try to define who's a manager and who's not a manager and it's a lot cleaner down the road for for other cases to not put manager in there because what you're saying is it's a manager's house and two tenant houses you know and so you're if it's a primary resident which they're going to build here then on the 40 acres we've pretty much gone with one per 40 acres but it could be more intense than that depending on the use yeah and i do want to say frank made a good point um building inspection did tell me exactly what he said that when you can prove that it is needed that it is an intense agricultural operation um that they will you can make a request to have more than one tenant house per 40 acres and that they will review that and it goes to the the director for approval. Also, your primary residence does not count in that. So you can have a primary residence on the farm and then a tenant house per 40 acres. So in this case, they would be allowed to have that primary residence plus two tenant houses. Okay, any other questions? Entertain a motion? Sorry, Greg, I just, not to complicate it, but could they have a duplex by chance if you're trying to house more families? Has that ever been considered practical? Does that matter at all? I don't think I've ever seen that. I mean, I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I've just never seen it. I'm just curious. I don't know. What you're trying to get away from, let's just lay it all on the line here. here trying to get away from rental housing trying to get away from putting enough units on there that part of the income flow winds up being rental houses and so it's a fine line you're walking there between and that's why the intensity that's why I wouldn't use proposed many managers have manager house because it gets you into interpretation well he's part-time manager and part-time something else but the other thing is is that that's an interesting question he did I don't know the answer to that yeah if you were considering trying to do you know employees and house your employees and you do two families versus one family you know I'm just trying to think about it so that's curious Phillip I know of one farm in the county that has a duplex on it They do exist. I don't know how many, but there's at least one farm I know of that has them. Yes, it's a PDR farm. Do I have a motion and a second on this? I can't tell. I've got it up here, but I think that's the prior one. Okay. I can make a motion. that we approve this request. Okay, Marianne. Second. Dennis, is that you? Okay. Okay, we can vote live here now. Okay, motion carries. Yeah, one abstention. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, the next item is another infrastructure request. Beth will take us through. Okay, this is the new request that just came in. This is Farm 25-2001, tracks four and five of that, And this was a farm that was originally 291 acres when it was put into PDR, and the landowner retained his right to subdivide and did so. And it's now in six tracks. So this is owned by Raleigh McDonald, and he owns two of those that comprise approximately 104 acres. It is at 6901 and 7031 Athens Boonesboro Road. The parcel that he's putting the farm office, or would like to put the farm office on is 62 acres. It is a horse farm. The date of the easement was June 6, 2002, and it was submitted by Paul and Linda Schwartz. It is not a federal easement. There are no protected structures. There is a stone fence protected in the easement, but I talked to Mr. McDonald. That is not on the two parcels that he purchased. That was on another part of the farm. There will be no demolition. There are no residential requests. He just wants to construct a 24 by 27 farm office, which is just a little over 600 square feet. There is no paving requested. There is already a road in place because this is beside a small cabin. He has the impervious surface limit. There is none in this easement as an early easement. The building map is attached and shows you all. in addition to the new office he wants to build it they've marked everything on the farm for you all so you can see the barns the running sheds the cabin it is permitted in the easement the operation of a farm office is permitted as is farm infrastructure the staff notes the two tracks owned by mr. McDonald are part of a 291 acre farm okay I've covered that so we'll skip staff The staff recommendation is approval. The conservationist recommendation is pending since this just came in, but I expect that since there has already been building right beside that, they will not find a problem. But I put wording into the motion that's going to go up that includes language saying pending the NRCS conservationist approval so that you all can be assured that is in place before we give them permission. The pertinent easement language is in the prohibited uses in Section 4C that you can only do construction when it's for permitted farm infrastructure or housing. The reserved rights in Section 5K, the right to construct, repair, maintain or remove pens, corrals, paddocks, fences, barns, and related buildings. The reserved rights in Section 5N say the right to operate a farm office on the property. and then if you all will turn there is a map there behind the letter from mr. McDonald that shows you and it's in the bottom right corner where the new office will be Go ahead, Mary. Beth, does this mean that this was all our money? There's no federal easement. I'm looking at that. Tell me what that means. Since this was in 2002, it likely was partially state-funded when we got the $15 million from the state. Yes. You're welcome. Anyone have any questions on this one? Okay. You need to put the motion up for us to vote on it? Yeah, I don't know. It says attendance on mine, which is what it did before. I know, but it came up up here last time. I don't know. Anyway. Yes. I so move. All right. Marianne moves. Second. Second. Second from John. I see there's where it comes up. Okay. Okay. That's not showing up on our screen. Motion failed already. Bummer. Can we just do a verbal? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Opposed? Motion carried unanimously. Okay, we have one more item on the agenda today. It's an ordinance review committee. You all know we've talked about this. We met, I think, three times before with a group of people. I think it was back in maybe July sometime the last time we met, maybe. Okay, well, time flies. She says the winner. I'm really off. Anyway, we need to go ahead and get that committee back together and re-review what we had already looked at before. And since Nathan led that and has since left the committee, I'm losing my voice. I'm recommending that Lucy Van Meter be put on that committee. We need another good attorney. So I entertain a motion for that. Motion to approve Lucy on that committee. Okay, have John made the motion? Second was? Okay. Healy, did you get that? Healy? And are we going to set a time or are we going to set a time later? I will reach out to the four existing and then Lucy and set that, and we'll go ahead and get that done. and hopefully we'll set up something before the end of the month. Would you remind me who the four are that are on it? It is DeeDee, Zach, Healy, and you in addition to. And then Lucy. And Lucy. Okay. Yeah, just don't vote. We got enough on there. Okay, that motion carries as well. Okay, any other questions on that? I know that in our last meeting we had with the planning commission, we were down here, a lot of those people are on the council, and they did indicate that they wanted to look at the ordinance some. I think we're going to get some feedback from them before, hopefully. We'd ask for that. So this committee will look at that. Of course, nothing will be done before it comes back to this board, obviously. They'll just be recommendations. Yes, Frank, go ahead. The question I would have is after we look at it, does it go to the Planning Commission or does it go to Council? I don't know the protocol, Matt, to be honest with you. The reason I'm asking is the Council requested that we bring the ordinance changes back to them. Right. Eric, I don't know. Should it come by the Planning Commission before you do that or not? Probably go at the same time. I think at this point, Council, more than anything, just wants to hear what y'all have to say in terms of recommendations. I don't know how quickly they'll act on that. I think the way that it would go back to them would be in a planning and public safety meeting, to which they would then, to take any action, they would probably have to set up a committee to do anything. So I think it's something, I think it might be wise if I talk with Council Member Scotchfield, who's the chair of that committee might just kind of ask her if it would be okay to go to the planning commission with it as well those recommendations and see what their preference is my reason for asking that question is this coming thursday the uh the changes to the rural land management plan will be brought to the planning commission and it's a 1 30 meeting and we didn't get into it as committee as a as a board like I'd hope we would because we had 13 meetings on that thing I mean it took a lot of a lot of doing and what I would hope would do this is that those of you that can either come down or watch the meeting it you know and just get up to speed on that because I don't think there's many ordinance changes in it but there's quite a few changes in it a lot of it's just updating maps updating statistics but a lot of it is doing away with things like the tdr part that was in there which we've never used and some of those types of things that those of you that are interested and need to look at because it'll come to us as a group i bet we're going to make individual changes in it and then it'll go to council and it might be good for for planning public safety to get an overview of those changes as well i think they aren't as up to date on on what's going on with the rural lane management plan but i think it would be good for them to know that possibly in tandem with this so that might be something that we can now again i'll talk with councilmember scutchfield and see if maybe we can get that on the agenda get the the rural management plan changes and maybe that can go simultaneously with the recommendations to them from this board right and then we can get the recommendations as well to go to the planning commission well my reason for asking derek is that we're on a fast track to do this comp plan and i would like to get this part approved when we do the other comp plan so we don't have to go back and do an addition to the comp plan and go through all that that's my only reason for bringing that up okay we have any announcements um the only announcement i was going to make is um what frank just said that this one at 1 30 this thursday you all have been invited by the planning commission and the staff um to come to the meeting at 1 30. did i say friday oh no it's thursday at 1 30. and it's actually in the phoenix building where we've met before on the third floor in the big conference room and it's a work session so it's not televised actually so you would in order to participate you would have to attend if anyone they will have copies of the plan there if anyone would like one i'll be happy to also stick that in the mail for you today this afternoon after we leave here or tomorrow or you can pick one up on Thursday but yes it's about 130 pages I think so I tried to send it out to you all by email and it bounced back so yeah and the only other is just a reminder that October 30th is our PDR application and thank you to the board members who've come in and looked at the map and working on recruitment and I have hopes that we're going to have a good recruiting year so thank you all okay I don't see any public here so I don't think we have any public comment anybody else have anything before we adjourn today all right motion to adjourn second emotion I think Dennis, all in favor can leave. Frank. . Thank you.