# Board of Adjustment - February 12, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 12, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4448 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4448?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-02-12 - **Last revised**: February 12, 2018 - **Length**: 33,028 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on February 12, 2018, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed 10 agenda items during the session, taking 10 formal votes on various variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews. The meeting included one public comment period, allowing community input on the matters under consideration. Of the 10 items reviewed, the board approved 5 applications, denied 4 applications, and tabled 1 application for future consideration. The approved items included variances for overhead door distance, side yard reduction, landscape buffer elimination, an administrative review for non-conforming use change, and a conditional use permit for a home-based business. The board denied four applications: two separate variance requests for fence height increases, a variance for floor area ratio and building height, and a conditional use permit for bed and breakfast and events operations. One item regarding an administrative review and conditional use for special events was tabled, indicating the need for additional information or consideration before a final decision could be made. The meeting demonstrated the board's role in reviewing zoning-related requests and balancing property owner needs with community standards and regulations. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 12, 2018 meeting: • Branden Gross • Harry Clarke • Joan Whitman • Raquel Carter • Thomas Glover Two members were absent: • Chad Needham • Jan Meyer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered ten items during the February 12, 2018 meeting, with five members voting on each matter: Branden Gross, Harry Clarke, Joan Whitman, Raquel Carter, and Thomas Glover. **Approved Items:** • **PLN-BOA-18-00005** [timestamp: 02:12]: Thomas Glover motioned to approve a variance reducing the required distance of an overhead door from 100 feet to 68 feet, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, subject to three conditions and based on the submitted site plan. • **PLN-BOA-18-00006** [timestamp: 02:20]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve a variance reducing the required side street side yard from 30 feet to 10 feet, seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, based on staff recommendation and subject to conditions. • **PLN-BOA-18-00008** [timestamp: 02:30]: Raquel Carter motioned to approve a variance eliminating the required 'zone to zone' landscape buffer, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, based on staff recommendation and subject to conditions. • **PLN-BOA-18-00010** [timestamp: 02:40]: Thomas Glover motioned to approve an administrative review to change one legal non-conforming use to another, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, for reasons recommended by staff and subject to conditions. • **PLN-BOA-18-00014** [timestamp: 09:00]: Raquel Carter motioned to approve a conditional use permit to operate a home-based business for firearm appraisal, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, subject to 8 conditions listed by staff. **Denied Items:** Four applications were unanimously denied 5-0: PLN-BOA-18-00009 and PLN-BOA-18-00011 (both fence height variances from 4 to 6 feet) [timestamps: 05:00, 06:00], PLN-BOA-18-00013 (floor area ratio and building height variance) [timestamp: 07:00], and PLN-BOA-18-00004 (bed and breakfast with wedding venue conditional use) [timestamp: 08:00]. **Postponed Item:** • **PLN-BOA-18-00007** [timestamp: 10:00]: Thomas Glover motioned to postpone the administrative review and conditional use for special events and seasonal activities until March 12, 2018, seconded by Harry Clarke. The postponement was approved unanimously 5-0. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the meeting during the public comment period. James Brown spoke regarding neighborhood redevelopment [timestamp: 07:30]. He expressed concerns about the scale and character of new developments currently taking place in the neighborhood. Brown emphasized the importance of developers being more considerate of existing residents when planning and implementing new projects in the area. ## Appointments The meeting included several reappointments to key leadership positions. Three individuals were reappointed to their respective roles: • **Branden Gross** was reappointed as Chairperson • **Thomas Glover** was reappointed as Vice-Chairperson • **Joan Whitman** was reappointed as Secretary These reappointments maintain continuity in the leadership structure, with all three officials continuing in their current positions for another term. ## Contested Items Three variance and conditional use requests faced significant community opposition during the February 12, 2018 meeting. **Fence Height Variance - Wayne and Linda Bussell** Wayne and Linda Bussell requested a variance to increase fence height on their property. The proposal encountered substantial community opposition from residents who raised concerns about how the increased fence height would impact neighborhood character and safety. Community members expressed worry that the taller fence would be inconsistent with the established residential aesthetic and could create safety issues. **Floor Area Ratio and Building Height Variance - Jimmy Eichner** Jimmy Eichner sought variances for both floor area ratio and building height requirements for a proposed structure. The request faced opposition from community members who argued that the proposed building would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Residents also expressed concerns about potential disruptions and impacts associated with the construction process, suggesting the project would be incompatible with the existing residential environment. **Conditional Use for Bed and Breakfast and Events - Tyler Schilling** Tyler Schilling requested conditional use approval to operate a bed and breakfast facility and host events on the property. This proposal generated community opposition centered on several key issues. Residents raised concerns about increased traffic that would result from the commercial operation in a residential area. Noise concerns were also prominent, with community members worried about disruptions from both overnight guests and special events. Additionally, opponents questioned whether the proposed use would comply with existing zoning regulations for the area. All three contested items involved community members actively participating in the public hearing process to voice their opposition to the proposed variances and conditional use requests, citing impacts on neighborhood character, safety, traffic, noise, and zoning compliance. ## Variance for Overhead Door Distance [timestamp: 02:12] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00005, a variance request submitted by Buddy Prather Jr. to reduce the required setback distance for an overhead door from the standard 100 feet to 68 feet from a residential zone. Buddy Prather Jr. presented the variance request to the board, seeking relief from the municipal code requirements that mandate overhead doors maintain a minimum distance of 100 feet from residential zoning areas. The applicant requested approval to construct or maintain an overhead door at a reduced distance of 68 feet from the nearest residential zone boundary. The board reviewed the variance application and determined that the request met the necessary criteria for approval. Following their deliberation, the board voted to approve the variance with conditions, though the specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available materials. This variance allows the applicant to proceed with their project at the reduced setback distance while maintaining appropriate safeguards through the imposed conditions. The approval of PLN-BOA-18-00005 provides Buddy Prather Jr. with the necessary relief from the standard zoning requirements to move forward with the overhead door installation at the 68-foot setback distance. ## Variance for Side Yard Reduction [timestamp: 02:20] The Board of Adjustment considered case PLN-BOA-18-00006, a variance request from Lexington Habitat for Humanity to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. Peter Carew served as a key speaker during the discussion of this variance application. The request involved reducing the standard setback requirement by 20 feet, representing a significant modification to the typical zoning requirements. Following deliberation, the board approved the variance request with conditions. The approval allows Lexington Habitat for Humanity to proceed with their project using the reduced 10-foot side street side yard setback instead of the standard 30-foot requirement. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available materials, but the board's decision to approve the variance with stipulations suggests they found the request reasonable while ensuring appropriate safeguards were in place. This variance approval enables Lexington Habitat for Humanity to move forward with their development plans under the modified setback requirements, supporting the organization's mission to provide affordable housing in the community. ## Variance for Landscape Buffer Elimination [timestamp: 02:30] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00008, a variance request from Jason Futch to eliminate the required "zone to zone" landscape buffer for his property. Futch presented his request to the board, seeking relief from the municipal landscaping requirements that typically mandate buffer zones between different zoning classifications. The specific details of the property location and the nature of the adjacent zoning were discussed during his presentation. The board reviewed the variance application and evaluated whether the request met the criteria for granting relief from the standard landscape buffer requirements. These types of variances typically require demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances that make compliance with the standard buffer requirements impractical or unreasonable. Following discussion and consideration of the merits of the request, the board voted to approve the variance. However, the approval came with conditions, though the specific nature of those conditions was not detailed in the available materials. The approval of PLN-BOA-18-00008 allows Futch to proceed with his project without installing the landscape buffer that would normally be required between the different zoning areas on or adjacent to his property. The conditional approval suggests the board found merit in the request while still maintaining some level of oversight or requirements to address any potential impacts from eliminating the buffer zone. ## Administrative Review for Non-Conforming Use Change [timestamp: 02:40] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-18-00010, an administrative review request submitted by Michael Stuart to change a legal non-conforming use from an auto repair business to a window washing business. Stuart presented his request to transition the existing non-conforming auto repair operation to a window washing business at the same location. The application sought approval to change from one type of legal non-conforming use to another under the city's zoning regulations. The board evaluated whether the proposed window washing business would be compatible with the surrounding area and whether it met the criteria for non-conforming use changes. The discussion focused on the operational differences between the current auto repair use and the proposed window washing business, including potential impacts on neighboring properties. After reviewing the application materials and hearing Stuart's presentation, the board determined that the window washing business would be an appropriate replacement for the auto repair use. The board found that the new use would likely generate less intensive activity and be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the existing auto repair operation. The board approved PLN-BOA-18-00010 with conditions. The approval allows Michael Stuart to proceed with converting the legal non-conforming auto repair business to a window washing business, subject to compliance with the specified conditions attached to the approval. ## Variance for Fence Height Increase [timestamp: 05:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-18-00009, a variance request submitted by Wayne and Linda Bussell to increase the allowable fence height from the standard 4 feet to 6 feet on their property. Richard Getty served as a key speaker during the discussion of this variance request. The Bussells sought permission to exceed the municipal fence height regulations, which typically limit residential fencing to 4 feet in height. After reviewing the application and hearing the presentation, the Board of Appeals denied the variance request. The board determined that the applicants had not met the necessary criteria required for granting a variance to the existing fence height ordinance. The denial means the Bussells must comply with the existing 4-foot fence height limitation established in the municipal code. No alternative solutions or conditions were offered as part of the board's decision. ## Variance for Fence Height Increase [timestamp: 06:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00011, a variance request from Wynndale Development, LLC to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet. Jacob Walbourn served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the variance request to the board members. Following the presentation and board discussion, the variance request was denied. The board did not approve Wynndale Development, LLC's request to exceed the standard 4-foot fence height limitation and construct a 6-foot fence on the property. The specific reasons for the denial, details of the property location, and any conditions or alternatives discussed during the deliberation were not captured in the available meeting materials. ## Variance for Floor Area Ratio and Building Height [timestamp: 07:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00013, a variance request submitted by Jimmy Eichner to increase the allowable floor area ratio and building height for his property. Jim Eichner presented his case to the board, seeking approval for the variance that would allow construction beyond the current zoning limitations for both floor area ratio and building height requirements. Following the presentation and board discussion, the variance request was denied. The board did not approve the requested increases to either the floor area ratio or building height allowances for the property. The denial means the property must comply with existing zoning regulations regarding both floor area ratio and maximum building height restrictions. ## Conditional Use for Bed and Breakfast and Events [timestamp: 08:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-18-00004, a conditional use request submitted by Tyler Schilling to establish a bed and breakfast operation and host weddings and events on his property. Schilling presented his proposal to the board, seeking approval for the dual-purpose commercial use that would combine overnight accommodations with event hosting capabilities. The application represented a request to modify the permitted uses of the property to include these hospitality and entertainment functions. Following deliberation on the conditional use application, the board ultimately denied Schilling's request. The specific concerns or objections that led to the denial were discussed during the meeting proceedings, though the detailed reasoning behind the board's decision would require review of the full meeting transcript. The denial means Schilling will not be permitted to operate the proposed bed and breakfast or host weddings and events under this conditional use application. If he wishes to pursue the project, he would need to address the board's concerns and potentially resubmit a revised application or appeal the decision through appropriate channels. This agenda item demonstrates the board's role in evaluating requests for conditional uses that would introduce commercial activities into areas where such uses require special approval and consideration of potential impacts on the surrounding community. ## Conditional Use for Home-Based Business [timestamp: 09:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-18-00014 for a conditional use permit submitted by Ensslin Enterprises and Consulting, LLC to operate a home-based business specializing in firearm appraisal services. The applicant presented their request to the board, seeking approval to conduct firearm appraisal activities from their residential property. The proposed home-based business would involve evaluating and appraising firearms for clients. Following the applicant's presentation and board discussion, the conditional use permit was approved. The board granted the permit with specific conditions attached to ensure compliance with local zoning regulations and to address any potential impacts on the surrounding residential area. The approval allows Ensslin Enterprises and Consulting, LLC to proceed with operating their firearm appraisal business from their home location, subject to the conditions established by the board as part of the conditional use permit. ## Administrative Review and Conditional Use for Special Events [timestamp: 10:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00007, an administrative review and conditional use application for special events and seasonal activities submitted by Michael Booth. Michael Booth presented his request to the board, seeking approval for special events and seasonal activities through the administrative review and conditional use process. The specific details of the proposed events and activities were discussed during the presentation. Following the presentation and board discussion, the members determined that additional time was needed to properly evaluate the application. Rather than proceeding with a decision during this meeting, the board chose to postpone their determination on the matter. The outcome of this agenda item was that the decision was tabled, allowing for further review and consideration at a future meeting. This postponement will provide the board with additional time to examine the details of Booth's proposal and any relevant considerations before making their final determination on the administrative review and conditional use application for special events. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-18-00005** — passed (5-0): Variance to reduce the required distance of an overhead door from 100 feet to 68 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00006** — passed (5-0): Variance to reduce the required side street side yard from 30 feet to 10 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00008** — passed (5-0): Variance to eliminate the required 'zone to zone' landscape buffer - **PLN-BOA-18-00010** — passed (5-0): Administrative review to change one legal non-conforming use to another - **PLN-BOA-18-00009** — failed (0-5): Variance to increase the allowable height of a fence from 4 feet to 6 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00011** — failed (0-5): Variance to increase the allowable height of a fence from 4 feet to 6 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00013** — failed (0-5): Variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio and building height - **PLN-BOA-18-00004** — failed (0-5): Conditional use to establish a bed and breakfast and host weddings - **PLN-BOA-18-00014** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit to operate a home-based business (appraisal of firearms) - **PLN-BOA-18-00007** — postponed (5-0): Administrative review and conditional use for special events and seasonal activities --- ## Full transcript so we will be probably doing a bunch of repeats and slow votes. Tammy, if you are ready, we'll have a vote. An and then to add to the already chaotic process we have today. I now since it's after 1:30, need to call the conditional use appeals docket there was than issue with the posting at these properties. They put down the time of 1:30 which was our old hearing time instead of 1:00 P.M. Weary essentially recalling those item s for everyone that has come before us is there anyone in opposition to that application today. We'll have you call up in probably one minute. The next item is... Come on since you wanted a postponement. I forgot about that. >> ira duncan post requesting a postponement through the 12th of March next month because the new the initial notification letter that came out did not include the aspects of my business to be a federal firearms holder. We have the new letters already drafted with that everything has been submitted to that so I'm requesting the postponement until next month. >> so will be heard March 12, 2018 at 1:00 P.M. >> yes. >> I don't believe we have do anything, do we on a postponement? Do we have to move on a postponement? I'll entertain a motion or unless anyone has any questions for the staff or applicant? I make a most to post postpone to March 12 any discussion? All those in favor please raise your hand and eye aye. Any opposed in thank you, sir. See you next month. Any other postponement requests or withdrawals on the conditional use appeals? In that case then the next item on the conditional use appeal docket is pln-boa-18-0 4 tyler shilling. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. You don't have to come up yet. I'll call you in a second. Is there anyone here in opposition to this application? Okay then there is opposition is from any reason for you to discuss this out in the hallway to come to a resolution? If you don't think so then in that case we'll put you on the docket to be heard. Park early childhood center is next. Is there anyone in opposition? Okay. So we'll have you come up and probably 30 seconds, ma'am. The next item is pln boar-18-14 insulin enterprises consulting l lc. Applicant present? Is there anyone in opposition to that matter? There is one in opposition. Bear with me for one second. The last unopposed matter recommended for approval is pln-boa-18-12 park early child lood center. Ma'am, if you want to come up to the podium for me. Please state your name for the record. >> janice combs. Director of the center. >> thank you, ma'am. were you aren't when I swore everybody in? >> yes. >> okay. The staff has recommended approval of your request today. They have recommended two conditions. Have you seen those conditions? >> I have. And are you in agreement with those conditions? >> yes, sir. Does anyone have if I questions to the applicant? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. I move to approve pln-boa-18-12 verbally say our vote. All those in favor say aye and raise your hand. Thank you. Good luck with your project. >> thank you. >> now if I have kept my records correctly, it looks like the first item not necessarily with opposition but has not been recommended for approval is pln-boa -- 18 --- before I do that. Is there anyone here that is going to testify today which means you are going to come up to the podium and give us any tft who is not sworn in when I did the swear? If so please swear and I'll swear the rest in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. So I have pln-boa -- 18-0 9 wayne and linda bussel. The applicant please come forward through counsel and before we start, I would like to say that Mr. Gety and I briefly spoke on this matter last week. it did not rise to what I would think an ex parte discussion but I did want to disclose that to anyone in the crowd who has opposition. I have already disclosed that to legal and to staff so unless someone finds that I should re consider my opinion that I don't need to step aside, please let me know now. Hearing none disl. That was bas ed on my concern that some of the materials had or had not gotten. >> Mr. Gety called me to make sure we received the package related to this application. So with that being said, please put your name on the record. >> richard a getty on behalf of wayne and linda bussell. >> what we usually do when they remedies approval, I'll give the staff a few minutes to represent their case and you will have the opportunity to rebutt their case and then we'll have discussions at that time. Thank you, sir. >> shall I remain here? >> I probably recommend you sit. You have a bunch of materials and you do, too. Would it make sense for you to put those in record and pass them out and give us a few minutes to review those some. >> we can do that now. >> let's do that. >> I can identify what they are and you can have the staff, I guess, talk. >> go ahead. Thank you. >> along with the application we submitted other materials which included a number of photographs of neighboring properties and this is what I've given you now is broken into three different packets. The first packet are a group of the original photographs that were submitted to you. We went out and canvassed a few other areas and the second group has some additional photos that we located where there are some other front walls. This one is... The first one is on kentucky avenue that is six feet in the frontage of the house. The third packet really just consists of two things. The first two pages, I asked and Mr. Farmerrer was very helpful in getting me the details from commander wright in the office of the chief I wanted the statistics. There are 19 collisions during the two-year period that have occurred at the corner of chin way between hartford and cooper drive and cochran road. >> if there is anything in opposition, it has not been given to us. >> once the board looks at those - , you can look at them as well. 3. >> hoyme copies do you have? >> just the one copy. >> you will have to wait your turn like anyone else. >> I can wait for one opposition since there was only one anonymous objection. I'm sure it it is the same person. >> there is only one in opposition. >> I believe so. >> it's with me, Mr. Getty so will you have it in one minute. >> I'll be patient. is it appropriate to go into recess while we review those or do the cameras need to be roll ing while we are passing these around? >> I don't know. I'm assuming that if you want to look at them, you can take a recess, but if they're going to be discussed, you know, if you want to look at them ahead of time but they're going to be addressed I'm assuming during presentations as well. So it's up to you all. >> I'm going to do a five-minute recess so that everyone can read these, pass them down the line and once we are done we will then come back in. That way you all can stretch your legs and take a break. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. We had a lot of materials to review. It looks like the computers are functioning again looks like we functioning software begun and I'll let staff present their case. >> this is a request for a variance to allow a fence or brick wall from 14 to 16 feet et >> one question. >> is it six feet or 6'8". >> it is 6'" 8". >> a portion of the brick wall has been existing for a number of years. There was a permit in 2003 for its construction. The front portion of the wall was recently constructed and a complaint was received by the division of building inspection, I believe in November, and that complaint was the genesis for this application for a variance. the fence was constructed without a permit to a height exceeding six feet. The staff has recommended dis approval of this variance based on the, what we see as a lack of any special circumstance that warrant the need for a fence exceeding four feet in height. As well as concerns regarding the neighborhood character. If you'll go ahead and put that up first. We did a drive-thru survey of the area of chen way road. That's about a two-mile stretch. 259 houses there chenowey. Along that two-mile stretch of chenowey, there are 159 houses and there are four with any kind of front wall fence or wall. The map here highlights richmond road to cooper drive which is where all four of them are located. That is less than 3%, I think it's right at 2.5% of all the properties between rich mopped road and alumni that have any kind of front yard fence whatsoever including the subject property. If we go through those one by one, 200 chenowey was permitted in 1989, 226 was permitted in 1987. 420 is the bussel property and 542, the fence has been there prior to 2004 and was grandfathered in. 200 has a compliant fence at about four feet. The other two, 226 and 542 are similar to the bussells in height but as I said, they were grandfathered in or permitted before the text amendment which was approved in 2011 limiting front yard fences to four feet. that text amendment was based on some site distance issues and concerns about negative impact on neighborhood character. And I can read to you from the minutes from that is text amendment that the planning committee who was in charge of this text amendment and raid the recommendation in 2011, they surveyed 20 other survey cities and in reviewing information from the cities, 90% of those cities restricted the right of fences in the front yard to three or four feet in height so we are consistent on a larger scale. With those cities. That's all I have for now. Any questions? >> I have a question much on the existing portion, the one that was there and permitted in 2003. What is the height 69 fence? >> I believe it is about the same the existing 7'2" wall. So it's seven feet. >> it would require a significant drop in height to continue the fence? >> May I ask this. Those existing properties with fence, what about surrounding that bussell property and other areas? >> I believe the applicant has some additional photos of other fences in the area. Our extensive research we just focused on the chenowey corridor >> one of the pictures that we were given was a 500 chenowey. Was that on your list. Shin way, it looks like a newer fence. >> that fence I believe is a side phelps. >> yes, it is. >> hold on. the applicant is going to bring up safety concerns. Did the planning staff, did you all take into consideration in your disapproval any kind of safety concerns that might be raised about the height of a fence? >> we believe a fence at a height of four feet would provide the appropriate level of safety for this location. >> okay, thank you. >> I would just add fat this there is any of the type of safety information I think the applicant is going to provide, that for it to be totally relevant, it would have to be compared to other intersections not just totally focused on that particular intersection. >> just one more thing. Is there a traffic advisability issue? Because it is a lie traffic corner the right of way is wide and it doesn't just go there. >> a question I have, if there are other fences in the area, not necessarily on chenowey, why was this, probably can't answer this but why was this particular property singled out for a complaint? >> as I said, this was based on a complaint a citizen ccomplaint I think because they saw the construction of the fence. Potentially those other fences have been there longer or just unnoticed. >> makes sense. >> was that complaint issued during or after completion, do you know? >> I believe it was actually I'm not sure. >> maybe Mr. Getty will know the answer to that. any additional questions for staff before we proceed? Okay. Mr. Getty, please come forward. >> thank you. >> and they can't put up your pictures on the screen -- they can if you so choose. >> I think, to save time and me time, I think they're numbered in the packets. The first one I would like you to maybe before I actually get into the presentation, take a look at is number 13 in the first packet the numbers are, they're tape willed but the numbers are in the upper left hand corner, the one on 425 chenowey road, cochran road across from chenowey from the bussells. That is a shot. They did not consider that in their list of chenowey properties but that is the front of the house. That is the front to the side, both the side and the front of that. It's an old fence. You can tell just by looking at it. It's seven feet tall. The other thing that and I'll address it as we go through them there are a number of other walls in excess of six and a half-seven feet in the surround ing areas. One that I bring your attention to is, it's in the packet, the first packet and it is Dr. Sleighbaugh's property which is on ashwood on the corner of ashwood and the other road that intersects with it. If you look at number, the last two, we've got them flagged actually number 20 and 21, and the first packet there are two pages that are actually flagged. That's this wurch right here. That's Dr. Slaybaugh. He requested a variance and you considered it and granted a variance. That's over seven feet tall both on the front and to the side. The next picture shows the side road and the front. And the front is obviously with the brick portion, closer to eight, eight and a half feet, I think. If you look and see on the second page right here. (Inaudible) >> we need you to be on the mic. >> the next to the last one 1600 ashwood woods point road. And when you see the seven-foot indication, the brick portion of that wall is, it looks like it's probably eight feet. The wood portion of the wall is shown on the prior picture, which is number 20. It's one of those flagged and it is somewhere... It's over seven feet. This is the view that I'm show ing you. So I was interested in just simply pointing out that of the ones we flagged, the very first portion, the very first photo shows the front of this property and I believe it's very nicely done smed it was constructed by david howell, who I think is probably the best mason in lexington. In the lexington area. If you can still get him to do residential work. The 420 shin way road is the second that shows the bussells fence along the side. First three show the bussells property. Then as you go through, you've got 542 chenowey, where there is a wall that's well... Well, it's seven feet or above. Then you've got 542 chenowey, that's number 5. That is obviously a wall with vines on it. It's in excess of seven feet. Another shot of 542 clearly show s it's in excess of seven. I believe this is W.T. Young's property, which has a wall in the front and then a wall of seven feet in height behind it. This is ray shot, the next one, which is number eight, 436 dudly road and that has a fence that is over six feet probably six and a half feet would be my estimate. And you can see the bussells property is right down the road. This was not considered by the staff. I think the most important thing about the staff's opposition is what they didn't do they pinpointed two or three on chenowey but missed a couple of chenowey that I'm bringing to your attention at this time. The next one, the next three are actually dudly road and then there is 500 chenowey and I think Miss Carter raised an issue about that. That's item number 11 in the first packet. You can see there then the 428 we showed you before hive I've 425. Dudly number 14 and then with the wall and the portion on top of it, it looks to be close to nine feet myself. It's clearly over seven feet. Ridgeway road and hart road is number 15. there is another one with the height of the wall completely or the fence is well in excess of eight feet. You don't know if you count hedges but there are a lot of hedges that are also pretty tall the other wrun I bring to your attention which I think is important is number 18. I May have did you a disservice when I stapled the darned things but number 18 is ridge way and cochran road. A brick wall, nicely done which is about seven feet. Another shot of the ridge way and the last one I showed you was the variance sought and obtained by the doctor on ash wood and the corner of the intersecting road. Number 22 and 23 are the corner of shinalt which are in excess of the height limitations. I think they were all before the 2011 except for the slaybaugh. >> and they sought a permit. And a variance. >> we sought a vair unions for around the front portion and around the side both. >> let me ask you quickly before you go to the second package. Irsee bill hodges was your general contractor. What was his excuse for not obtaining the variance. >> the bussells bought this property in 1982, they had a six foot wood enfence and they obtained permit for a 6'8" wooden fence. Then it was replaced by a brick wall or brick fence in I believe it was 2003. The original plans were permit ted and they called for a 6 feet plus wall around the front of the property. the problem was the wall wasn't continued and built because of financial considerations they built the wall from the side around and on the other side and they didn't continue it around to complete it across the front of the house. And this is the thing that I think is most interesting because if you read... I thought the most important part of the staff's report was the section where they said number c, when the zoning ordinance was amended a few years ago to reduce the allowable height of a fence or wall in the front yard from six to four feet there was a general awareness that some existing walls and fences would not comply with the new requirement. In this context, the presence of some front yard fences or walls greater than four feet in the vicinity of the subject property is not surprising and does not contribute significantly to any justification for the variance. Here's my point. They had a permit. They didn't complete it, you know and if it's fine for these other walls to of built an now be considered to be grandfather ed in, you know, why should my clients be punished because they didn't complete the wall that they thought they had permitted. Now later on when they decided to reconstruct the house and hired Mr. Hodges to come in and redo the house, my understanding is there was a discussion with building inspx office -- inspection office and they were informed the front wall would be grand fathered in if they built it later. and then in 2016 when the re construction began, the front wall is clearly shown on the 2016 building permit. That was submitted by Mr. Hodges rp and he is here. He can answer any questions that you May have after I hopefully finish up this quick present ation. But my point is here is that it's inherently unfair for the bussells who have legitimate safety and privacy concerns is and who have built, from an architectural visual point of view, I think, a wall that is pleasing to the eye and does provide safety concerns that they have for their property. I provided you with the statistics, showing the number of wrecks that have taken place at that intersection. And I read the one single objection which was anonymous at first, and parentally has now come forward in the form of this email, they live oaf on clinton road. They're back the other way. >> Mr. Gety, do you disagree or contest the idea that the permit had expired? The building permit that was issued in '0 3? >> I'm sure it did. Building permits are not add in fin item. I guess they did the construction that was anticipat ed at that time new hodges right now is in the process of finishing up a brand new structure there, a really pretty house that has been built from the ground up. With respect to the building permit situation, I think one of the things that is a factor here that the board should consider is that in 2016, the building permit clearly showed the wall being constructed around the front. >> you mean the building permit application or the permit itself >> the building permit site plan that was submitted. I think that's part of the record. I think that's in there. In addition to the grandfather ing or unfairness of not allowing this wall to remain , our serious concerns about privacy and safety. I showed you the report that was obtained through the chief's office about the number of wreck s there. The second page in that packet is friday February 19, an email and photograph shows an suv that wrecked right in front at that intersection. There continue to be wrecks that have occurred in this area and the police recorded the number of 1 during the period that's noted in the document. There are over 21 people that have come forward with letters, that's the last part of this third group. There is a list with who has sent the letters, joe rosenberg and his wife ricky, ernie arnold who is in the real estate business, other people who live in this area and who know the bussells and are well in full support of this situation and the variance that's been request ed. And you know, I would point out that, for example, Mrs. Rosenberg said that, you know, in fact she says they were next door neighbors and lived at 500 chenowey at 500 chinoe. They have been aware of the changes to their house that they have done since 1982 and she said she is well aware of the changes, growth and other construction in the neighborhood and I also note the long exist ing brick wall at 542 chinoe. Only one block away. She said the brick fence was built over a period of years. It certainly is a great improvement to the property and to the neighborhood. I would note this, you know, four foot wall in terms of privacy or someone trying to intrude upon your property, you can climb over a foot foot wall a heck of a lot easier than a six foot or 6'8". So there is a safety concern that is there I won't belabor the point of all these letters but the oaching support of the neighbors is in support of the variance. Under these circumstances I think the bussells have tried in good faith to comply with any existing provisions or thought they had. And when they got an anonymous objection, they didn't sit back like some property owners have until the building inspector comes out and sites them or takes steps against them. They midly you know, came to council and asked that a variance application be submit ted. So I think they've acted in good faith. The only other thing that second packet I showed you, the wall on kentucky avenue in woodland park area, there are a couple of other walls or fences, for example, summit drive. That's height of overseven feet. I just think it would be inherently unfair given the time and the distance between the initial beginning of this wall and the current time where it would be unfair to not allow them to have a variance. I believe it is the right thing do and the character of a neighborhood is defined by the people living in. And one thing I think is pretty obvious here as evidenced by the numerous letters in support, the neighborhood, the people who live in this neighborhood, they desire that the requested variance be granted. The only objection comes from someone who visually can't even see the wall. They live way over on clinton road and one of their objections is that when they turn at the corner, the one wall they think would distract them. I think the woman was actually referring to the side wall, not the front wall. So I'd be happy to any any other questions that you have. I think the hope sees fit to grant this variance and I think the way the bussells have handl ed this whole situation should be fully considered. When you make your deliberations about whether it should or not not be approved. There are several people here who briefly have signed in to make some comments who are neighbors and who have supported the variance. So I just... >> several questions from me before you go. first question I have is I'm looking at the site plan and it does show a wall but I cannot see anywhere where it shows the height of the wall. I. >> I thought the height was on the site plan. Mr. Hodges is here. >> if he could look at that and point that out to us. That would be helpful. I see an outline of the wall but I cannot see where it was submit ted for the permit. So. Mr. Hodges please put your name on the record. >> yes, signed in for that. I've been here before. >> yes, sir, say your name right there into the microphone. >> william h. Hodges,, Jr. >> thank you, sir. >> registered civil engineer in kentucky. Have been building houses in central kentucky for the last 44 years. This one for the bussells actually replaced the house that was built in 1948. At the time the first house was built, there were no building lines or building restrictions so the plat, if you had a real small version on, I have a larger anniversary in front of me. It did show on the front, a dash ed line which was continuation that was not noted on the drawings of this wall. And we got a permit, did not specifically outline that the wall would be built but it was shown on the drawing; which has my engineer stamp on it including with all the other drawings. this is the one that was filed with the building inspection. So we came up to the time to disoo the wall after we constructed the new house and we had the dotted line but I didn't go probably go back down and say this is going to be a brick wall here. But it was a continuation of the existing walls that were on the property. That showed oat -- that showed on this thing here. Didn't call out for new brick wall to be built but building inspection told me it wasn't a consideration for them because we were extending the brick wall what building inspection is more concerned with is the health and safety and construction of the structre so that's where we are we built the wall where the old permit had said it could go but it was perhaps an error on my part that I didn't go back and repermit specifically that that wall but it was shown on the master plat that building inspection had. >> any questions for more hodgesz? Thank you, sir. Mr. Gety. Who is your next witness? >> before you leave Mr. Hodges, I thought I heard you say that sand I want to make sure because we are on the record, I thought I heard you say that it was your mistake that you didn't indicate the height of the wall... >> that's correct. I didn't. Nobody asked me and I didn't do it. It was a rather difficult project to do. The house that was constructed here was the only house on chinoe in 1948. And it had two bomb shelters in the basement. , very unique thing to do. Had the tear the old one down and had to, the house that there is now is in line with the building setback lines that were created well after the house was built. So there were things that happened ug during the time before the bussells owned the house that changed the location of where the new structure had to be or new lot lines. >> follow up real quickly make sure I understand this. So the plans that were filed with the building permit show the wall but not the height. That's correct. >> so I was correct when I couldn't find it on there. >> thank you, sir, appreciate it there is there anything from the plans that you need? You have the permit and site plan, a small version. >> I don't think we need anything unless for some reason those plans contradict what we, has been submitted to us, the site plan. >> we have the mason here. I know david howell is here and we also have a gentleman here that would like to speak briefly >> please come forward. Introduce yourself for the reported and speak into the microphone for me. >> good morning. Just cigd. It's way in the afternoon. G.J. Gerard with counterculture plus. >> you May proceed. Proceed with your testimony. >> not a very formal man. I'm practicing here. I had a lot actually I was going to say. Mr. Getty really verbalized a lot of it very well boiling it down to common sense which, to me, it very much feels like. There are just a couple of things I wanted to say that maybe he didn't. P two things: one is I'm her granite guy and I was over there looking at don'ter tops. I was there for an hour. In the course of an hour, I would absolutely have a privacy fence. The hour that I was there. One car hits a trash can on the other side of the street, debris , trash can goes flying all over the street. Cop car there, people honking, never ending revving and that was just in the hour that I was there. Man, this is a busy intersection I also used to live across the street at 411 chinoe. I can attest the noise is frustrating. Luckily for me I had two neighbors on either side of mooy to defuse a lot of that. Just from the front is where I got it. But they're on the busy corner which guarantees them to get more noise than anybody. Speaking of that corner, when I was there measuring, I did ask, being a symmetrical kind of guy, I like clean straight lines. I said on this corner of the fence, why would you not have a square corner like every other corner of the house and on chinoe. And she said she was doing it to allow for better visibilty for vehicles turning on to her street and for neighbors and people walking, better visibilty she gave up the potential of having symmetrical and square fence out of thoughtfulness for the visibilty of her neighborhood, which I just think that in this situation, there are several instances as she said, there came a time do we do this out of selfishness or those they sided on thoughtful neglects and doing the right thing which is what brought me here today. I promise you I have better things to do with my time but in the mind set that this is to me feels like fighting for what is right, I don't... I could do things more profitable but maybe into the more important. To me this is a real clear case of what is right and what is wrong. I think rules are very important I do own a business and I'm extremely fond of rules. Without them my guys would do whatever they wanted and I would be homeless without rules. Luckily they follow my rules and we all get along. None of my rules, however, are perfect, which I think is important to think about. I've been doing this, my business a long time. Still every week some part of my program needs a little sweeking. Sometimes there are exceptions to my rules and each time we have a problem we address it like we are doing here today. I know that character of a person has nothing to do with right and wrong. The rules are rules, laws are are are are are are are or bad thern of r person, they're still the same. I got to know them well enough to know, not that this is a qualifier but they are not snot ty thoughtless or arrogant people or else I would not be here. I promise you again I have better things to do. I think some some situations karma does come back on people but with the bussells, I don't think that's the case. Linda bussells is a sweet, smart , thoughtful retired lady who has saved her whole life for this project. >> that's not jermaine to the hearig. >> you know what I mean when I say that. Character doesn't matter but this is one of those things... >> we'll put it on the record that we think her character is great. >> although there is issue with the fence we are here to decide if an exception can be made and I hope we can look at this and do what is right. I'll leave it at that. I came up here and waited and just wanted to, you know, 'em bolden his thoughts because he is right. That was it. >> thank you for your time today >> david howell built the wall where it stopped and he completed it. And he wanted to say something. >> I didn't know I was going to speak so you need to swear me in >> do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> thank you, sir. Please put your name on the record for us. >> I'm david howell. I did come in to linda's rescue years ago when we built the wall it had a person originally going to build it and he messed it all up so I came in and helped them finish it initially. And to my understanding, it was always her plan to finish the wall out front but because of circumstances, the amount of brick we found originally, it stopped there. So and as far as the height, it was always, from my... Going to be a six-foot high wall. The only reason it is 6'8" is because the ground varies so much, you have to, esthetically, you have to keep it because the ground varies some of the places , it is eight inches higher because of the fall of the land. The other thing is the second day I was there, I had my $3,000 mixer stolen from out front. I understand very much why they want a wall. It is a great option. >> chevy chase sounds like a horrible place to live. >> I built Mr. Young's wall and two or three others down there, too and they are all, they got high security everywhere. So, anyway. One other thing I did want to say about linda. My mother doesn't even send me christmas cards anymore. From the day I built this wall until this day, every christmas I get a letter from linda bus sells. The first time I got it I had to figure out who it was from. She is a sweet lady and thank you. >> thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Howell? >> one other, just to wrap up, two other points that were observed. The other gentleman who spoke made a point of noting how they designed the wall to cut across on the corners for more visibilty. They did that in participation of trying to accommodate any kind of traffic or people coming around that corner. The other thing is there was a delay because this is special brick that at a point they couldn't get anymore. And Mr. Howell, I'm sure could confirm that. That's one of the reasons it stopped the construction, finish ing it around the front. It's special brick. It's actually made in utah and it's very difficult to get. I think it turned out quite well I live in chevy chase. It's getting worser and worser in terms of, to use a phrase, in terms of crime but it's still okay. I still live there and, but I think this wall is a plus when all factors are considered. And I don't think... I think the way the bussells have tried to act in good faith, I think it's more than ample grounds to vote in favor of the variance. >> thank you, Mr. Getty. Are there any questions... >> I'm sorry. miss rosenberg did want to say something. >> please put your name on the record. >> hi, my real name is erica rosenberg. I need to be sworn in. I wasn't planning to speak but I have a in you thought for you. >> please raise your hand. Do you swear or atirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> thank you. >> my husband joe res enberg and I lived across the street for many years. Now we live on lake wood drive about five houses in from tates creek road. Wfn the last year there have been nuclear power robberies surrounding our house. Next door was one robbery. Three doors down was another. Catty corner across the street and then one about eight houses down to our right. That's a scary thought. It's chevy chase, lakewood drive yesterday my husband installed by himself security cameras around the house. We do have an alarm system but he put the cameras in and we are in the process of having a gate put across our driveway. It's a scary thought that somebody will come into your space and I hate that we have to do this. It's crazy. I I would have never thought this would be happening in our neighborhood. So I certainly understand what the bussells are doing for the security aspect of it. Chinoe is a busy place and cochran but it's all happening all over in chevy chase. It's a concern I account wassed to share. Thank you. >> any other surprise witnesses? >> no. Since I live right around the corner on tates creek road, I'm glad to now know about those break-ins. I have a security system but mary ann won't use it. I keep telling her to put it on but she never does. >> anyone else in the audience have any comments? Does the staff maybe? Kuwait, comments on this case? You guys are in opposition. I wish I would have known that. Okay then please one at a time come up and give your testimony. So what we'll do, if you could limit your comments to two or three minutes each so we can move forward. I'm assuming you all were sworn in because I recall seeing you earlier. State your name for the record and give are your testimony f. We ask questions eel we'll ask and if not we'll move to the next question. >> edward tipton I live on adair road which is about three blocks away from this fence. One thing that they brought up% that I don't think has been brought up is safety and they're talking about their safety but what the safety of the people that drive up and down chinoe. It's a very busy street. If you hit a six or seven-foot fensz, brick fence, with an automobile, it can probably cost someone their life. You know, it seems to me if they've lived in this house for quite sometime and then tore it down and rebuilt, if they were that concerned about privacy and safety, maybe they should have considered moving in a place that had more privacy and safety ricky was talking about robberies. Robberies. Robberies. Robberies. Robberies. Robberies. Robberies. Years ago. Someone broke in our house, was in it about two or three hours, carried out a safe with all my wife's jewelry. But I would never consider put ting a six or seven-foot fence around the boundaries of my property to keep burglars out , off our property. I just wouldn't do that to my neighbors: it looks to me and again I don't know the technicalities what have you all dee deal with every day but it looks to me if there has been a rule on the books since 2011 that says you can't put a fence around the front of your house, that's taller than four feet, and you or your builder or whoever desides to go on and do that, it looks to me like that's just, I mean that's just not right. The attorney was talking about the slaybaugh's house. They have a large fence but it's not around the front of their property line and they have a pool. I'm sure there is a certain height requirements for people that have a pool in their back yard that wasn't mentioned. that's basically all have I to say. >> thank you, sir. >> my name is mk kern I live at 050 clinton road right around the corner from the bussells house at 420 chinoe. I didn't hear about this issue until very recently when the letters went out so you don't have an email from me. Would I have sent one had I known about it earlier. I don't approve of their petition for several reasons the% first is precedence. There are a couple on chinoe that have tall fences bought they're at the side of the house s or in line with the house there is no house on chinoe that has a 6'8" brick wall at the sidwalk. And as it stands now, that wall is very visibly prominent. It sticks out and it alters pretty substantially the character of the neighborhood in a way that I think is not very desirable. One of the best things about the chevy chase ashland park neighborhood is the opening welcoming look of the houses with the deep setbacks and nice front yards to have a 6'8" brook wall that is practically up against the sidewalk all around, in my mind, detracts from the character of the neighborhood. I also have safety concerns about that wall. I take that corner cochran to chinoe on a daily basis. And usually multiple times a day and while the cutout helps a little to improve biz built. I can tell you that if I'm going toward chinoe and I've got a green light and I'm going to cross chinoe, if there were a kid riding a bike fast on that sidewalk or a teenager on a skateboard racing down, I don't think I would see that kid in they failed to stop for the stop light. I think it's just a matter of time before there is a car- pedestrian accident with brick wall that high. 48-inch brick wall you can see over the top of it and see what is down the street on chinoe with the fence the height it is now you cannot. We know that crime is going up in the neighborhood but everything I know about home defense is that exterior light ing and visibilty is the better way to safeguard against robberies than having a 6'8" fence that once the person jumps over it, you can't see them trying to jump troo rob the house. Thank you. I hope will you vote against the proposal. >> thank you, ma'am. Next. >> my name is libbed aprice and I live at 501 clinton road and I would like to echo basically the same thing that Mrs. Kern said I speak as a private citizen and I don't represent any organization today. I also am very concerned about the approval of this variance bus I believing it would set a very important precedent for this entire neighborhood if we allow these kinds of fences in our neighborhood. I think that other homeowners could then construct other kinds of front yard fences and it would virtually change the whole neighborhood character. And I think that would be very detrimental to the neighborhood. So I would strongly ask you not to approve this variance and I would ask you this question. Are we going to allow us to build these kinds of walls on other gigsy corners in neighborhoods in lexington. If we are, I think it's a very dangerous precedent to start. And I ask you and implore you please don't allow this. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak and thank you for your service to lexington. Thank you very much. >> thank you, ma'am. Next. I'm john price and I want to take this scenario to your world and where you live. And with that, let's go to your front sidewalk at your house and from that front sidewalk, we measure back with and build a wall 6'8" tall. That wall goes all around the perimeter of your lot and so every day you look at and say golly, what is going on next door? And you know this wall started and then it just kind of had babies and grew again and grew again and you finally look out and by gosh the thing is 6'8" tall. I was going to say I thought a correctional thing was going on at the corner of chinoe road and cochran. So put it into your world. If this wall went around your place at 6'8" tonight and solely surrounded your place and you had the inability to look down the street. You just looked into a 6'" 8 " wall, that's what the ordinance is based on, to keep that situation from happening and we hope that you exercise the right thing. Thank you. >> jim. James as far as my letter was concerned. I'm speaking in favor of the bus sells in opposition to the staff finding. First, in my letter I mentioned liability and safety. Before I speak to that, I've lived in chevy chase for 30, 40 years. I have a 26-year-old daughter who when I lived on fontaine road there was a young woman out jogging at 5:00 6:00 in the morning. When there were no "gangs" in lexington. She was abducted. Our city has changed in the last 30 years. It's not what it was. Now I've known the bussells for sometime. The people who spoke in opposition to the bussells spoke of a wall. No one has mentioned the electrical box that's bigger and taller than this that is current ly and has been since it was put there a visual obstruction and in violation of fayette county ordinances in speaking to what I'm interested in, not that box which has nothing to do with the wall. I'm speaking about who arbitrarily came up with a four- foot wall? When they came up with the four- foot wall, this time last week there were five lexington ian that were alive that are not today. Think of that. You just had people in the opposition talking about their special choice even though they've been robbed, they would not protect their castle anymore than what they're doing. Well the bussells want to protect their castle. They want a wall. And my question in my letter was , are these staff, are you board members liable if, I believe young girl's name was ma khaalia who was a drive by shoot ing in her neighborhood, not more than 12 months ago. Now my letter I didn't mention her name because I'm not positive of the name. I was doing it from recall. We live in a different world. I lived in mexico for a year and a half. They wouldn't even think of debating something such as this. Mr. Getty got the accident list and somebody spoke if a car hits the wall. First of all if the car hits the wall, the driver has done something inappropriate and is not in control of their vehicle. I hope you find in favor of the bussells because I still don't have the answer from my letter of are you liable if my friends get shot by just having a four- foot wall? Again, I hope, if you were here when that young woman was abduct ed on fontaine, I would like to have a show of hands because I was. >> thank you, sir. >> I heard somebody say there was not a wall over seven feet on chinoe road. Here is one. it's at 200. There is another one at 500. Another view of it. I just hope you exercise your discretion wisely and grant this variance. >> thank you, sir. Okay. Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak on this matter if staff, any comments? >> a number. Folks who spoke in opposition mention setting a precedent and that is one of staff's most important considerations in this recommendation that the intent of the zoning ordinance is not being met by this request. In 2011, the text amendment changing this requirement to a four-foot tall front yard fence was approved. This was not something that was taken lightly at that time. There was approximately 18 months of work done by counsel planning committee to determine four-foot was the appropriate height to for a front yard fence in lexington. It was even noted during the discussion about that text amendment that many walls in the chevy chase area would become non-conforming but it was decided at that time that it was something we did not want to move forward with continuing. Additionally we do have permit information regarding a number of the property is that Mr. Gett y referenced and you saw photos of earlier if you have questions about those individually, I would be happy to answer them. Additionally the issue of the fence being shown on the permit drawings for the reconstruction of the property, as I believe the engineer said there was a dotted line on the drawing. There was nothing that indicated the fence or its height and I think building inspection can at test to that as well. I spoke with the inspector who spoke to the bussells regarding this fence and he said there was no fence shown on the drawings that. That was not anything that would have been approved at that time. >> I do have a question. Do you have the information 1600 ashwood. >> yes. >> where the variance was approved. >> yes. That variance was obtained in 2016. It was a request for a variance to increase the maximum allow able height in a side street side yard from six feet to eight feet. Reasons for approval on that one included the fact there was as an existing wooden fence on the subject property in the desired location that was that height. They were arey placing an exist ing fence. That was, let's see. There were five recommendations for approval here. The fence would not adversely affect the public, health safety or welfare. And I can show you all these if you would like. >> point being that approval was based on a replacement of a non- conforming fence in the same location. Looking through these photos and I know since I've been in the board, we have declined, I'm not aware of us approving a front yard fence of this height even though I know we've had at least one request in the last 24 months. Are you aware of us. >> I'm not aware of any front yard fences. I do recall one that is listed on here. I believe it was 345 dudley road , side street side yard fence that we did approve but not front yard fences. >> can you clarify for me just for my own memory the difference between the ordinance for a side yard and front yard fence. >> side street side yard fence where there is a side street is required to be four feet tall if it is within three foot of the right of way. If it is outside of three feet further than from the right of way, it is permitted to be six feet taw. >> and is that from the actual looed... >> from the public right of way. >> where the walk ends generally spiking. >> it needs to be six three feet back and can be fix feet tall. >> correct. >> of the diagrams we've seen, many of them are side yards but we don't have the figures how far they are from the public line. >> yes. >> part of that is we don't know when they were built because the fence regulations have changed. >> any additional questions for staff? Mr. Marks. >> I need to add additional comments. >> okay. >> well this is quite an unusual charming, Mr. Marks coming to the podium for us. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just touched on the difference between front and side yards. What is requested as a front yard? Variance? Not a side street side yard variance? That's why we focused on the% front yards along chinoe and of the 11 properties that were referenced in the original application submittal that Mr. G etty referenced, eight out of those 11 were side yard issue s not front yard. Left only three. Two of those were either grandfathered or permitted the one remaining that I want to clarify was a front yard variance granted by the board of adjustment was 138 chinat ult. We can compare it why the staff and board approved it compared to the subject property. Character of the area. That's why we focused on the chinoe street corridor that's why we surveyed 159 properties. What defines the character is whattings normally there. The 2003 permit and 2016 showing of a continuation of a fence or a wall on a building plan, those don't have any value in contributing to justifying this request. Except accepting that something in 2003 was grandfathered over the course of 10 years would throw the permitting process upside-down. We have representatives from building inspection that can get into more detail about that if we need to. the same 4eu7g with the 2we79 16 thing -- 2016 things. Lots of things are referenced on building plan that have nothing to do with what the building permit is for and they can talk more about that. I don't understand the safety data that was presented for the intersection. How does that relate to the four foot versus the four foot wall with vehicle accidents. I don't really understand that. Security information. There is a concept called secure by design, which generally indicates that if you want a place to be secure, it needs to be visible around the perimeter where people might be trying to do something. So if that concept was applied to this property, the determination would be that so that it remains advisic, you can , you can , you can , you you don't want a tall wall. So you need to kind of put that in the hopper for things to consider. If security was an issue, this never would have been passed by the urban county council and I want to correct for the record, May of 2012 that the urban county council approved the four -foot height limit for front yards. I guess the idea here is if you accept these circumstances that have been brought up, the zoning ordinance has no meaning. Anybody can make that exact same argument. So you need to think about that. We talked about the precedent and how would you handle the future requests. I think we talked about that enough. The support letters, picked upon the one objection letter for not living in the neighborhood. Well, many of the support letters you got were from people who don't live in the neighborhood. Too. I'm hoping you don't have to dig into it in too much detail. I think the case is pretty strong without having to do that I think that's it for me. Thank you. >> thank you Mr. Marks. Mr. Getty, sir, the public comment period is ended so if you could take a seat. >> it was a question to staff. >> that can be addressed at a different time. Mr. Getty, if you have a quick ... Well, closing. >> I'll just say one or two things. This is private property. This is the bussells property I. Is not public property. It is not owned by the city or by the county or the state. They have a right to privacy. They've done a tasteful wall here. It seems to be supported by all the neighbors who are visibly around it or who are familiar with what they've done. I don't understand people over in clinton, which can't even see the wall, why they would object to it but I mean some people object to everything. And last thing I'll say is this: you have at least three out of 11 properties that this gentleman, and I don't know what basis the staff has already spoken. I don't even know who Mr. Marks is. I guess he's with the staff. But three out of 11 of chinoe road have mostly seven foot wall s. So you have a precedence there. And the last thing I'll say is I'm not aware of really any difference in terms of the character of the community between chinoe and chinaault. There are more serious concerns about safety and traffic and protection from a run away car or whatever on chinoe than you would on chinault but if there is a front yard that has been approved on chinault, then this property should be approved on chinoe. >> I'm interested in knowing if I'm walking down the street on chinoe, how would I get to the front door. >> there is a gate. A six foot wrought iron gate similar to what I have other properties including a property on third street I originally bought as an investment property you get in because there is a six-foot, there is a wall that was approved by the historic people six feet tall there is a wrought iron gate. You can put an electronic thing or a key. Mine has a key. That's how you enter through the wall. >> how is this one protected then? How is this particular especially transpreblged? Is it a key? A lock? >> it's not been constructed yet they have a blockage now. they have dry wall there pinned up against it so that people cannot enter while the construction is ongoing. Which you want because you don't want somebody walking on the property and getting hurt. It would be either way, my understanding is that they are installing security cameras also on the property. >> thank you. >> I have been informed if the board has any questions for building inspection, they're up here for those questions. Except for them, are there any questions for the applicant or for our planning staff? Okay. Does anybody have any questions for building inspection? Okay. So as everyone knows, staff has recommended disapproval and if we were to recommend approval, we would need to come up with findings and legal would have to have an opportunity to draft those. And the motion would be either to disapprove the application or to approve the application as presented. And of course we can always have after a motion is made, we can have discussions or we can have a discussion now prior to the motion being made one way or the other. Okay. I don't see anyone's buttons lighting up. The chair will entertain a motion on this application. >> well, I wasn't planning to comment but do I have several observations just because we have been sitting here for a while listening to a lot of testimony and the members of the board, other than ask questions, haven't indicated their preference or their inclinations I just wanted to have some oak izations. We typically view applications for forgiveness more critically than we do applications for permission so that's one strike against you on this application to begin with. I'm pretty familiar with the chinoe road corridor. I've got many friends who live on or near that area. I'm a little surprised to hear that the chevy chase area is a dangerous place to live. I would think that people would be surprised about that who live there. I think that a six-foot fence or 6'8" fence is out of character for the neighborhood. I'm familiar with the property on 542 chinoe on the corn corner of chinoe and hart, I'm not sure it's an old brick fence that's six or seven feet tall and certainly out of character and it certainly blocks the view of anybody making a turn or bicycl ers coming or pedestrians coming along on that road. I'm certainly interested in the precedent setting that this board is going to make because everything we do is precedent set inning some respect. So I know that this chinoe road corridor and the streets that feed into it are undergoing substantial changes. In fact I had occasion to walk around the neighborhood with a friend of mine who lives in the area and we counted I think 13 different projects under construction in about a four- block area. So I know there are a lot of tear downs and a lot of re constructions and a lot of additions being made and built along this area. And I'm concerned about the qld of setting a precedent by grant ing forgiveness for a mistake that was made not seeking permission to build this fence before it was built. So those are my concerns. We denied a request several months ago from a fellow who lives on the corner of albany and tates creek road who wanted to build a taller fence. He built a four-foot fence and it looks nice and it probably gives him the same protection that would give anybody a four foot fence. I defer to the urban community council in their wisdom and in changing the text amendment to make uniform four-foot fence for a front yard. I have some sympathy for the bus sells because they've already spent the money, the time and the effort to build a fence that's not in compliance. And a brick fence. So I do have some sympathy for them because that, if the... If this request for a variance is not approved then that money was spent invain and the everyday was in vain as well. So I do have some sympathy for them to do that. It could have been avoided by somebody asking for permission to build this fence and since the text amendment was passed in May of 2012, permission to build this 6'8" fence would have been denied and we would not have had to go through this process. those are my thoughts. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. Glover. Anyone else? And well once again the chair will entertain a motion from the board. >> Mr. Chairman I move that we disapprove pln boar 18-9 wayne and linda bussells request for a variance to increase the allow able height of a fence from four feet to 6'8" at 420 chinoe road for based on the testimony we've heard today, the staff report and testimony and for the reasons recommended by staff in their staff report. >> thank you, Mr. Glofer. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Mr. Chark seconds. Is the voting working? It is? Please register your votes. Mr. Glover's motion carries and the application has been denied. Which moves us to the next item on the agenda which is number 5, pln-boa-18-11 wyndale development lc, is the applicant present. Thank you. Is there anyone here... There was someone in opposition? I'm sorry. The staff is in opposition. Yes. So once again do you want to come up and start? This request is somewhat similar to our previous request. A request to increase the allow able height of front yard fence from four feet to six feet in a high rise apartment zone at 206 lexington avenue. We are putting an image up right now. I believe of the fence. decorative wrought iron fence in front of a newly constructed apartment building. The applicant has stated that they would like to have their fence here to allow their front yard to be useable for recreational activities for the residents as well as security based on the property's location between campus and downtown, a lot of transient foot traffic. As you can see in the image that there is no gate on the fence to prohibit anyone from entering that area behind the fence. There are a number of apartment buildings along the street and overwhelmingly they do not have any kind of front yard fence so we do feel that this fence is not in character with the neighborhood and there are no special circumstances that we feel have any weight to this situation. So again it's pretty much going back to what we said last time. >> this one has not been built in. >> it has been built, too. >> this is was we've got. Again forgiveness. >> does anyone have any comments for staff before the applicant comes forward? Okay. Thank you. I'm sure we'll have comments or questions for you. Mr. Wahlburn. Nice seeing you again. Please put your name on the record. >> jacob wahlburn on behalf of wyndale development. Pleased to be with you as always of course a little terrified having just watched the last case in what is a fairly factual ly similar case I would concede. There are some key differences here however that I think you are going to see this is a more approval proveable application than the one you just disposed of. First I'll touch on the issue with the fence being constructed my client is here today steve perry of wyndale development. Mr. Perry has done several smaller residential projects, smaller May not be fair. He is probably rolling his eyes at me, infill smaller lot residential projects within lexington. As you May be aware, when you go to the planning commission, there are numerous obligations that come up with you are doing an infill project. One of those only gaitions is zone to zone screening. Wurn of those obligations is fencing off or creening off your vehicular use area and we'll admit we messed up. We didn't ask for the right permission for thattence if. The reason that is because we had already discussed a six-foot tall fence in the rear of the property around the vehicular use area where there was no special permission required. The building inspector went out and said oh good I see you've got your fence in not realizing and they caught it later but nobody realized that we needed special permission because we thought it was covered on the development plan that had been approved through the planning commission. It was not approved through the planning commission and we are here to seek your forgiveness for that. We are worry that happened. We would have asked per anythings in advance but it leads to something she pointed ow in the staff report I would like to crair phi for the record yes there are openings on the fence right now to get in and out of. Those would have been completed with a gate to prohibit access to it had we not received notice of the violation. But rather than finish out a project that we knew we had made a mistake, we stopped everything , applied for the varianceians and that's why we are here today. What is different than this case than the one you just her? I'm not going to tell you about private property, not going to tell you about neighborhood support, in fact I think you'll find there is a complete lack of neighborhood interest on this particular case. This case is different for three primary reasons. One, this is a multifamily residential development. In fact this development is zone ed r-5, our highest density category in fayette county. Predominantly student population I was alarmed as most of you all were to learn that the chinoe road corridor is apparently is as rough as it is. This is a little difference. Lexington avenue sits between the transit center and good samaritan hospital. If you spend any appreciable amount of time downtown, would you understand that the downtown area is going to be a little different from the chinoe road area. Not only in terms of the transient population and some homeless folks that are in the area. During the construction of this development we discovered a homeless gentleman sleeping in the dumpster. We've had package thefts, bicycle theft. Significant crime issues in the area. That's what motivated it. Three this is primarily a student residents. Students are not as responsible as adults of safeguarding their belongings. Second of all unlike a single family residents like you just heard about, all the parking that goes on in this area is an open lot at the rear of the structure. One of the reasons we wanted to do that because we thought it would be awe good idea to screen that vk lar use area from the street. It has the added effect though of providing a secluded area where those folks can be more readily victimized. So we think that the six-foot privacy fence would provide additional security. One of the things that I did in trying to look into whether I thought this was justified or not was to look at the example cited and I think it's one you raised, the disapprove variance at the corner of tates creek and albany. I suggest a couple differences between tates creek and chinoe and lexington avenue. They're two of your proceed dominant thorough thoroughfares with tates creek being a predominant spoke in terms of drive by traffic. Lexington avenue is a two-block street. As you said towards campus almost all the buildings present their sides to lexington avenue. You see the sides of the new residence halls down here, the temporary U.K. Bookstore currently on sectionington avenue. A two-block street. Not a significant thoroughfare. Much closer to an alley way than tailings creek road is. And so one of the things that I did and this is a service that is available maybe we should all run it for chinoe when we get hope, the lexington ky.Governor website has a complubt crime map I did 134 searching on what were the incidences of crime in the area. Were we imagining this problem or is there a significant issue with break-ins with assaults. You can pull up and I'll put these up on the overhead for you pull up an area of town, set a time period and it will show you all of the crimes that have been reported in that area over a given time period. I set the time from cement 1 to today. That would be the corner of tates creek and albany. I'd like to show you what I found. >> Mr. Wahlburn. I know this area. I have, in my youth, played in this area. I'm sure it has changed in the last 20 years since I was a student at U.K.; however, I do not recall and I doubt there is now any fencing of even a four- foot height on this street or in this area. Doesn't that one countier to the character of the neighborhood. >> there are two fences I would like to discusses with you. There is a front yard fence in front of the extra turnout. I can't remember which extra turnout it is. It is three properties down to us closer to the post office that does have I believe it's a four-foot fence. There is a significantly long six-foot fence that runs along lexington avenue that sits behind the post office. That is of course permissible one because the post office doesn't have to obey our plan ning regulations but two because even if they did, that's a side yard, a functional side yard but for basically a quarter of a block on lexington avenue, there is a six-foot tall chain link fence run ago long the side of electrics interest avenue closer to high street. I think as you see the more modern apartment units coming on , you May remember the old units before. The red monstrosity. It had the historic front and what can best be destroyed as a viable box on the back that had been built on. >> but there is an apartment building right next door with no ifence. >> there is one with no fence and I would agree with you there now my question is are they less concerned about safety? Have they not had some of the same instances we've seen. >> or maybe they follow the rules. >> well, they would be entitled to a four-foot fence if they so desired. I do think there is precedent for fencing in the area generally. And I don't think it would substantially alter the neighborhood of the character. One thing that is unique about our buildings versus apartment buildings in the area generally is we have exterior entrances to our corridors where others have interior entrance to the units. Not universally true. That's not a blanket proposition but it's one area where you May see less of a need for fences. If you have interior entrances where somebody is going to notice somebody out of place on the inside, you May not be as read difficult able to identify that for these exterior entrance s. We just think this is an issue for safety for the students. We are here to seek your mercy on having proceeded without it. Genuinely thought it was approv ed as part of the development plan. Mr. Perry is here and he can under line that. We are not claiming that we are grandfathered in. We are not claiming that the we have been misled by staff in any way. That's certainly not the case at all. It was a genuine mistake that the building inspector didn't even catch the first time they were out there. When they caught it the second time, we stoppedded what we were doing came to you and sought your permission. I wanted to compare these two things so you can see what I'm talking about. This is the corner of albany and tates creek road. I think you'll see in the last six months they've had three police calls in the area. There was a car break in at the emanuel baptist church and two home blawrg larrys, one a little south, you can see the squares on there, they reflect the two home break-ins. Want to compare that with the same time period for lexington avenue. All of the purple marks that you see, I can try to point them out to you, these here reflect sexual assaults. The green ones here are auto break-ins. I believe these are face to face robberies. There are burglaries. This is an area where we see quite a bit more crime. So I think the that the special kirks that you can find in this case the multifamily nature of the dwelling. Two it's proximity to downtown and significant transient population. Now in the hopes that you will consider our request here today and as you know, findings are necessary if you are going to grant these. I've taken the lib if I of preparing some kindings I would send around to you for your consideration. And I've provided these to your legal staff to see if she had any issues.% we are just trying to do a safe% complex here. We think this is a significant issue with crime in the area. We think a four-foot fence would not adequately deter someone and the best example I can think of is why. I'm five 5'11" someone who might be a little bit better shape I feel confident could. Six-foot fence visibly is more intim intimidating. Most people can't see over the top. Most people think it would be more difficult to get over the top of them. That's the dwirches between and four and six foot fence. If we had noticed in advance it wasn't approved, maybe we would have remedied it. So with that I'll provid both staff and you all with a copy of my proposed findings in the hope s that you will consider it. I'm here. Clie client is here if you have any specific questions. We think this one is appreciably different from the one you just heard and hope you treat it different. >> Miss Jones Miss Brown I'm assuming you reviewed the sign ings of the fact that and you feel that to the extent if a motion were made to approve that the evidence as presented by Mr. Wahlburn would at least support his findings? >> I think we would have to tweak them if you are so inclin ed. >> so just so the board knows if some reason we were to approve this, we would need to have staff revise these facts for us. But thank you for bringing them. We had an argument in council two months ago where they did not bring them and they told us they didn't have to bring drear findings of fact. >> I don't know whether I have to bring them or not but when I'm seeking forgiveness and hop ing for your indulgence, I thought it might be helpful. >> it does make our lives easier >> I'm happy to answer any questions that you May have as is my client Mr. Perry. >> any questions from the board? Okay then let's take a minute, look at these and we'll wrap this up. Sore. Sorry. Does the staff have anything else having heard the testimony, that that they want to add? >> I would just add that the crime data is interesting but what is lacking and I don't fault Mr. Wahlburn for this because the data May not be out there but data showing that areas that have four-foot fences are less secure than areas that have six-foot fences, I just don't think that information data is out there. Just something to think about. >> thank you, Mr. Marks. Record is noted. So the chair will tan a motion if somebody on the board feels compelled. >> Mr. Wahlburn and Mr. Perry, your timing was very poor, I agree. Tough to follow a disapproval with another staff recommendation for disapproval. I have to go along with staff on this one as well. I move that we disapprove pln pln-boa-18-11 wyndale development llc request for a variance to increase the allow able height of a fence from four feet to six feet in a high rise apartment zone at 260 lexington avenue for the reasons put forward by staff in their report and subject and for the reasons for disapproval. That the staff has indicated in their written report. The you. >> thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Miss Carter seconds. Please... Is there any discussion on the motion? In that case please register your votes. The application has been turned down. Sorry, gentlemen. The next item on the agenda is another disapproval recommendation from staff. The application pln-boa-18-13 jimmy ikeer in and the applicant is present I'll have staff come forward then the applicant will come forward and then we'll have comments from the audience and then we can have staff applicant with any additional testimony to close the arguments. >> Mr. Chairman we do have a fairly thick packet of letters from citizens. I don't know if you want to take a short break to look through those or... >> yeah, we'll take a five- minute recess. That will give people time to their legs. Rrp in order for this to remain as constructed, there is two variances needed. Up with is for the floor area ratio. Basically floor area ratio is the ratio of the square footage of the structure compared to the square footage of the lot. For example, if the trur was 2 ,000 square feet and the lot was 4,000 square feet, you divide and you get a floor area ratio of.5. What is allowed in this particular zone based being in the ill infill and redevelopment area and street frontage is it has, the floor area ratio is.35. This is a little over one on the floor area ratio. Close to a three times increase in allowable floor area ratio requested to allow this to remain as built. The other variance relates to the number of stories it's allowed. >> before you go on, jim. >> yes, Mr. Glover. >> when you said it's one, do you mean the lot size is equal to the floor space? >> that's correct. >> that's right. It's a little over one meaning the square footage of the structure is actually more than the square footage of the lot. >> just want to make sure I understand the concept. Great. Thank you. >> so the second variance relate s to the overall height and the number of stories. The ordinance allows two and a half stories and overall height of no more than 28 feet. Now the first estimate on this was that it did meet the height limit of 28 feet but not the stories. I think the most recent measur ing based on this coming to the board, build than inspection went out and it's actually 29 feet. So two are there as speblghts of that variance needed. From two and a half to three and one foot to 29 feet. Staff simply cannot support either of the two variances that have been requested. There have been no special circumstances identified by either the applicant or the staff that are unique to this particular property to justify either of the variances. I think we've shown it is clear ly out of character with em tree lane in terms of the type of residents you see there. There will be some hardship associated with having to modify this but unfortunately it was hardship that resulted in the applicant's own actions and I feel bad about that, but it happens sometimes, as you know from the two previous cases that we just heard. So that pretty briefly is our run down on this. Happy to answer questions. >> I have a few questions, Mr. Marks. First one is were any building permits pulled? >> yes, building inspection of course is here. Initially they got a remodel permit but when building inspection went to check on that they discovered new construction going on so they did pull a permit for the new construction but that was limited to two stories and what got built pursuant to that permit went well beyond the limit of the new construction so there were two times where they just didn't comply with permits that were issued. >> and build building inspection , are you able to give us a timeline for the board? >> I can dig that up if you want me to put it on the overhead? >> that would be good. Yeah can you see that from over there or do you want to come over here? If you could take us, walk us through this and if you could also sometime explain, for example, a remodel permit, a building permit, to give the board a little bit more background of what kind of permit that is and what you would expect to see or approve with that kind of permit. >> okay. Well first you see a remodel permit was submitted on 8-18 and it was reviewed and approved just shortly after that. We had an inspector just by there and it was obvious to them that they had exceeded the scope of the original remodel permit. So Mr. Eichner was cooperative. He stopped work. He came in and submitted for a new permit for a new house, basically it's a new house. They're using some of the exist ing foundation, but we consider that a new house. So he did that. So just following on down the little problem where he stated he was unable to apply for a new , then on whreive-20, the email informed Mr. Eichner the existing remodel will not prevent him to apply for this project under residential new construction application. So we just clearing that up. So just going forward, eventually you see 12-14, he had a building permit was issued for a two-story house. And jim didn't really explain, but on the floor ratio, there is also a minimum size that is allowed and that's 2600 square feet. So what he applied for was a 2600 square foot two-story house . That's really where we were stuck until it was discovered he was building a third floor. He had some correspondence with our planning staff and all along the way he was advised that anything he did in excess of the scope of the two story 2600 square foot house would have to be approved by you guys. So that's where we basically and then he did apply to the board of adjustment. So he did that. And my understanding, he really ... Basically kind of stop ped work about that time. But he already had his structure basically where it was today. And then the other... The last thing that we did, I went out there on January 12, because I thought there was also an additional it is too high. It's about two feet too high. I think I measured 1 feet 10" I know that's not part of the variance request but it was another concern and that's where we are right now. Mr. Eichner told me and I think he has basically lived up to this, he wasn't going to do anymore work on the house until the issue was settled so... That's where we are today. >> thank you, sir. Any questions for staff or for building inspection? If the applicant wants to come forward. >> thank you. I have good news. It's not about a fence. >> please state your name for the record. >> jim eichner. I'm here to speak for the owner of raphael vasquez. That works for me and tammy I'll give you one once we are done. Got one more thing for you. R >> are you still getting organized? >> I'm ready. >> we flipped through it but if you are going go through it page by page we can... >> first of all, as, we are licensed contractors by the way, for the city of lexington, also for your city we do city project s including fire houses and things like that. I say this just to note that you will hear some objections. I know this because I've had prior conversations with everyone here who wants to object, that there is a little bit of misinformation going around. You've already heard from Mr. Brian at the building department. And our relationship as a long time builder in lexington, of course you are aware we would do nothing to general diedz that with the building department. So we do work hand in hand. In this particular project, I want to thank fred stokely who has coached me through this particular project. Okay. Now I'm going to go through the technicalities first here. Most of the people have accused us of not having a building permit. Page 1. Mr. Brian has already explained the situation for going from a remodel to a new story home was degradation and dissent grace of the original house that we did not find until we got into it. I went back to the building department and said we have a lot of damage. It is cheaper for us to just knock it down, build a new house , which was approved. Okay. Second page you have is a site plan. Again all documented approved by the building department. This is the site plan that was approved. We sit on the existing foundation of the previous house over here. That was approved and verified by the survey. Next page that says kind of you are going to see a building plan with the exact dimensions match ing the building site and the total square footage here at approximately 2600 square feet. Okay. We, next page is what I submit ted to the building department to find out where they wanted to measure from. In other words, people are under the misconception that they measured from the ground to the ridge of the roof. This is not so. They measure to a halfway point from the highest dormer. The elevations, again submitted and approved by the building department. Indicating heights and elevations. Next pain is a side view of the house. what we are going to to use this in two different ways. The next page is the third floor as it is now. Now, one point I want to make is that on top of every second there has... And the roof contains and area underneath it. In smeft cases and my personal experience in working with the building department, that space can be, with their permission, expanded to what they call a bonus loom. Now remember we are permitted for two and one half stories. The building department rule for that is one half the square foot age of the floor below. So we are going to move on here to the last page where I have indicated some calculations for you. Total sides 44 x 22. Total structure approved by the building department 68 xi 30, making it 20-40. They do not count... Let me back up for a second. There is living space that's approved by the building department but there is a sub strax -- subtraction for other space that they don't consider living space within the structures. Okay, first floor living area. Exactly to the plans. 1156 square feet. Second floor a little bit larger because it goes offer that 430- foot ca raj which is perfectly fine. Ook. That's giving us a total living area matching the permit of 2691 just about within what was allowed. An opghts also to a builder is what do we want to do under the roof. When you have a 30-foot width of the house, you got a lot of space over the roof. A bonus room is desirable for value of the house. It doesn't change the space, shouldn't have a bathroom, etc., just basically a finished area. Play room, people have heard that. Things like that. The roof structure of that house is still going to go front to back. So the third floor 770 is what is allowed. The total of that would bring us to a grand total of 3461 less the allowed spaces for staircase s, mechanical and storage. I was advised by planning and zoning that that is calculated at.25. I can tell you that in that house and inspection they're going to find close to 300 or 400 square feet of just staircase to go up. That brings the total livering space and this is subjective. It depends, to right about at 2600 square feet. So when you add everything all together, including the third floor total, what we intended to ask for if was to continue to finish, which is back in your drawing over here the area that is underneath the roof that would be one of three things. Bonus attic or finished space. I was advised immediately by the building department, which I again coached me through this house, maybe because of the location we don't usually build down ton properties; that yeah, we would finish off that 770 square feet. We are entitled to two and a half story structure but we cannot build under your buildig codes and finish completely the other 770 square feet. As to the issue of the height, Mr. Brian and I have discussed it. It's a little suctive, too. It has to do with where you mets you are from. I can improve that a little bit by raising the grade. I've spoken to him about this. So we tried as hard as we could to stay within that. But moye point is that at this particular juncture we are legal , we are mitted we have in stop orders on the house and the building department has been out there several times, mostly at my request. And again. In person or on the phone with people as you know there is a radius my friend and the owner Mr. Vasquez decided that he would like to go ahead with something better than what was on the street. He based a lot of his decision and a lot of our discussion of what is one half of a block away anybody familiar with the area between fifth and sixth, we are between sixth and seventh. There are huge houses over there I would bet every one of them exceeds the size of our structure, they're pretty, they're brick, as will this house will be when it's finished over there my realtor recently showed a house over there, six houses away from us asking price over 2270,000. I bring this up to give you an idea of what is going on in this area over there. Neighborhood improvement. Again knowing the construction business development business and what is going on and my relationship with the city, this is something that has been encouraged is improvement in that area. I don't have to dwell on the crime, on the homelessness, et cetera. We began our journey with the code enforcement people who we spoke to, who had cited the house for I can't even count the violations when we purchased it. We immediately came up with a game plan and I learned a lot about what is going on. Oh you have to keep this house boarded up. It's full of homeless people. Full of syringes, et cetera, etc. You are all aware of what the downtown area is now. I can't even imagine chevy chase or something like that, but that's okay. Raphael's faith in the neighborhood is what motivated him to do this. But on just the same as most of the owners or some of the owners on that street, they are buying it for future investment property. Hopefully like everybody else, the prices of their investment will go up. All right. We have been through that. We of through that. I think from my discussions with other peep, yes, there is a concern about character of the neighborhood. But lexington is changing. I'm repeating the same thing i guess the attorney did for the other one. They might bring up a situation where I recently built a house on pick-a-dome being pick-a-dome park area, very close to lafayette high school. Same kind of situation, basically different houses. Well, the owner, who I work for, took a gamble and he built a 3300 square foot, three-story house. Which, at this time, was labeled a bonus room as far as the building department goes. >> I can tell you right now, I live in that neighborhood and that house is completely out of character. >> it is but it was legal. >> unfortunately for you, you are not in that neighborhood now >> and by the way that house sold like that for $394,000. I do what my boss tells me to do I'm sorry. That's what he wanted. I tried to talk him out of it and the owner is very, very happy. I just wanted to touch on that because I know it's going to come up, as you know. Raphael is probably looking at a $200,000 investment, which would be, you know, correlate with what they're asking, six houses away. Things like this. I also wanted to mention in discussions with my immediate neighbor on both the left and the right side of the house, giving strong consideration to a second story on these houses. One of them is a burned out shell that is going to need to be improved shortly and the other one is also owned and as i said, we have had discussions of him enlarging the square footage and things like that. So in a way, we say can on, we are going to help the street on that kind of thing. I might mention I've spoke tone james brown our Councilman In the neighborhood. Long conversations, no happy to see us on the street. You know, when you as far as character of the neighborhood and being out of character, it happened before. It wasn't the worst thing. You know that there were many people that ran to the building to code enforcement and made the same claims and objections to no avail because we were allowed to what what we're going to do and the same thing I believe stand for this. Now, and of course you go down to say the need variances and as it has arisen without permits, now I showed you the evidence that we did have the permits. We did nothing without the approval of the building department. On any level of construction. Do you have any questions about how area above a roof is considered by the building department? While Mr. Bryant and I are here? >> I have question first for staff. On the zoning ordinance which allows 2600 square feet, is that considering living space? It just says 2600 square feet and he's making a distinction between living space and -- >> my lucky day. I get to punt to our building inspection folks to see how they figure that. >> >> the math is efar, floor area ratio and by definition, certain spaces count and others don't. Decks don't count, covered porchs don't count. It is outside the exterior walls and exceptions for things like mechanical rooms. I think there are about 8 different things that qualify as far space and those exempted from far calculations including garage, offstreet parking is not included in far. >> the garage -- I'm thinking mechanical rooms in house are different from like basement and attic spaces. >> yes, attic spaces at sub 6 are considered to count to far finished basement is habit about, they count whether they are finished or not. >> and staircases. >> those are common so that is actually a hole in the floor wouldn't be -- that you would lose 27 square feet for a 3 by 9 opening in the floor. >> okay. And it is just important because numbers are not subjective. You mentioned that a couple times so I'm trying to get my math together. >> I May be off a foot or two, but, again, I've already run this by everybody and they feel that we're well within the ball park. >> and, going back to building inspection, based on the testimony of the applicant, would you find that they are in compliance with far, his calculations? I think he has come up with. >> well, no, the one thing that's wrong to start. The elevation that he is showing is not part of the permit set that we approved. We didn't approve any square footage on the third floor. I think we communicated that clearly to him and I didn't want you to get the impression that this site plan, this elevation drawings that he's showing here was improved in any way. Co-have had living space if you approved it and met the other height rethe stricttions and the half story and all of that, but, nothing -- no living space. We had no dispute on the first two floors. The first two floors, we had no dispute. What he showed us was 2600 square feet which was the ultimate limit, so even one square foot on the third floor would require a variance. So, I don't I don't know if that answers your question. We've approved nothing on the third floor. >> okay. And May I talk to the building inspect senator. >> I have a question. >> and say what can I do with the attic space? Again, most people, this is going back to the bonus room. You can apply for a permit, tag a little on and give you the square foot about and now, it is a bonus room. In this particular case, all we're asking for, all I was instructed to ask for was a variance to extend the square footage of the bonus room. Let me also say this: while the building department is here. the exterior size of structure will not change regardless of -- if you determine that you don't want to given us the square footage. The profile of the house will remain exactly the same. As inch the building department will permit. We cannot use that space as living space. Fortunately for Mr. Vazquez, he has about five kids, maybe six, I don't know, he needed a pretty big house. So that's -- >> the building inspection said that you cannot have a third floor. >> it would not -- there is I don't know if I can explain this as well as you. There is a definition of a third floor, and a third floor is on the roof, under the roof, now, remember we're allowed two and a half stories. We we can have that at one half the size of the floor below. This is what we can have. I did not number the pages. I apologize, you can see one marked bonus room. Probably a third from the rear. The front part is permissible under the present building code and that would be considered a two and one half story. In a situation where I want to add the rest of the store, the definition changes to third story. So there's a lot of things going on and the codes and this is why I wanted to be very clear about this. And you want to reiterate something else. I'll bring it up to you from an economic point of view. when you're building a house and a roof and floor and everything like that and you're growing up, you only --- already paid for the walls and the roof, it is not ex-responsive to go ahead and finish that space over there so economically, economic-wise it makes sense. No the reason that we're doing it since we have no intention of selling this house. Nor making it a duplex or anything tells. This is a personal residence that raphael decided that I he wanted to build for his family and he chose the area where a lot of consideration -- with a lot of consideration. Again, not to be redundant but part of that being what's happening six houses away from us. Not on the street over there. And again not be redundant, our neighbor probably own six to eight homes within the circumference area. He encouraged us to do so. And I think that I have covered a lot. I want to thank the building department for their help as always. I sign all of my letters to the building department and thank you for your help always. Things like that we have never and they will tell you this, we have never gone ahead with anything questionable without their permission. This is what I was told to do. He said okay, you can have the two and a half if you want the rest, go to the board for a variance. As far as the height variance, a little -- it is kind of an imaginary line that they drew and again, I think that I can satisfy them through discussions that I have had with Mr. Bryant. But, the physical size of structure on street will not change either way. >> before we have members of the audience speak. I would like to ask some questions for staff and building inspection because, a lot of this is really technical, mathematic calculations that you guys perform, and so, number one is, based upon the zoning ordinance, anything else has to come before us for a variance. >> that's correct. >> and according to the applicant, he has 1,150 feet on the first floor, and 1,541 feet on the second floor in this packet and they gave us, it is on the very last page which comes up with 27691. Do you back anything out or is the -- are they already 91 feet over what they are allowed to? >> I didn't do a review of the plans but, I mean, 91 feet, you could come one that very easily. He's got a pretty large landing, that create answer opening in floor but he basically designed the first two floors to eat up the entire 200, and that is -- I mean, so anything else, and I thought we made it very clear that anything else that was on a time sheet, was going to require a variance from this board. The one thing he also said andiate to get off of your question, but, we would object to building stand the way it is right now because, the way that you measure the height of the building to the mid-gable is approximately two feet too high and that's because instead of a half a story, he raised the pitch up from the original plan plans, and it raised it a couple% of feet. There May be thatway to get a half story up there and with your variance, he could use some of the -- some of the half a story, the third half of the story but, our position is that needs a variance from this board to do that. Two that you're looking at today and a third one that we did not quite get to you. >> that's not really right area because the floor definition by the zoning ordinance is anything that's over 7 and a half feet finished or not. And with the idea that it could be finished in the future so we would consider basketball the entire third floor to need a variance as built the way that it is right now. >> okay. Good, thank you. >> how many members are here for the audience that want to speak? All right we have four. And were you all sworn in prior? Okay. What I'll do is usually I try to limit audience comments to three minutes. Just have you come up one at a time and give yours first name and -- full name and please, give us your statement. So whoever wants to come first. Sorry, does the applicant wish to sneak. >> yes. >> my name is raphael vazquez and I'm the owner of 611 elm street, and, I bought this and had a lot of problems and I knew we had a lot of problems. I talked to my family and, we said, this is what we can afford to buy it for right now. And that is why we decided to choose that location. And, when it came down to remodel, we didn't want it to go this big. The problem is there were a lot of problems with the foundation. There were a lot of termite damage and problems with that. We're entitle today but regardless we have to have a roof on that so, that is the only thing that we changed on that roof was instead of going from this pitch, went up here. And we're asking, we're not building any walls or anything. It will be an open space for my daughters to play. I have four daughters and that's their room now. On those lots, safety is a big concern for me. The backyard is very small. And the front yard is the same, we have a lot of caller goes through -- cars going through. There has been shoot shootings going around the neighborhood and I'm asking for the variance for the safety of my daughters so they have a room to play and that's why " --- expo the roof has to have a roof on the sectorry. And I'm asking for you guys to let me have a game room for my daughters and that's -- those that's all it will be. And, what I'm asking is for it to be finished because, I have to have the roof regardless. So even if you guys said no. Yes, it will lower but I will still have the same -- we're talking about two foot, this will be lower. But, I will still have it, the roof on there so, the structure 1200 square feet, I'm still going to have that there. It is just going be the slope of the roof will be shorter. I did not have the funds for it. And we went out there and we asked for that. We had stopped and put a permit to have that. And it is not going be -- pretty much it is going be a game room for kids to play in instead of having them outside. Where there has been a lot of stuff going on. >> building inspection is that true if the gabel was built as in the permit, would they be able to have that attic space without it being an issue? Or, is it still an issue? >> the framing members have to be below and everyone a half feet and we take a position, if it is going be anything else like that or easily modified we would object to having stairs up there. It would be an at wick framing members below seven and half feet. If that's how it was left. But, that is not even close to what's there right now. I don't know if that answered your question. >> you did. But I wanted to make sure, so, the third to the ex-hasn't there is a third floor, it would have to be lowered essentially the frameingwould have to be -- >> two feet lower. >> I believe that is how it is worded in the zoning ordinance. If there is seven and half feet or more, it is considered added into the total to figure floor area ratio. It is considered floor area. >> >> thank you, sir is. And you'll have a chance after the audience speaks. >> I have a question for staff and I don't know whether it is -- planning or staff or building. If this application is denied, what happens? Or what would have to happen to this house? I mean, for it to come into compliance? I don't know what stage it is. I didn't go and buy this house to -- I didn't go by this house to look at iten I don't know how complete it is. It looks that it is not yet completed and it is not yet under roof. Am I correct? That? >> on the third floor, they basically have to take out the side walls along the third -- along the sides, and drop the pitch down to the height at mid-gable is no more than 28 feet. >> take the roof off and drop it down and put it back on? >> okay. >> can we lower the light as little bit more so it is easier. Thank you, ma'am. >> >>I'm assuming that's a top story. >> along the side, of the building, that's a full 8 feet tall wall where the rafters sit on top and go to a higher peek. It looks to me to correct it that wall is going to have to be shortened considerably so you me measure to mid-gable and lower the rafters down, you're going to drop at least about two neat the middle mid-span of that highest gabel. >> >> >> the match the front? >> not necessarily. I don't know, I have I have not done the math. Somebody should redraw us plans, we never had framing plans for third floor as constructed so we would need new plans for that. >> all right, thank you, sir. Any more questions for staff or the housing before I bring up the public? Gentlemen, please come up one at a time and state your name for the record and then, you can keep your comments to three minutes or so, we could keep proceeding with several more cases it looks like. >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't here to be sworn in. So do we need to do that is now. >> yes, sir. I'm first district Councilman. And I want to start by saying that I had a conversation with Mr. Ikner about this property, and for the record, I told him, I made him aware that I didn't have an opinion on it just because I didn't have all of information or time line of the progression of this development. But I did encourage him to reach out to neighbors that surrouded the property and he let me know that he had talked to the neighbors right adjacent to this property. And that you heard the neighborhoodiation was trying to get in contact with him or had some questions about the development, so, he asked me to get in contact and he had already talked to him. So, it is true this community needs and we value the reinvestment in the redevelopment that has taken place, but but when you have a neighborhood that's need something attention you have to be more sensitive about the redevelopment and investment that you do. There are people that have been in this community for a long time. They have grown up, raised their families in this neighborhood, and if they feel like the investment that's taken place in the community not respective of the scale, the character, or the history of that neighborhood, or, the developer is not reaching out or taking it into consideration, it is met with resistance which I think is what is happening today. I rode past the property. I haven't had a chance to talk walk around it but it does stand out from the other properties that are around it. It is not in the character, and it stand out and there are houses of that scale maybe a block away, or two blocks but in the block it it sits, it does kind of stick out and it is not reflective of the type of houses that sit in that neighborhood. So, I support the redevelopment and reinvestment in the community but I would ask the developer to be con thus and to be a good neighbor when moving forward with this project. Thank you. >> thank you, sir. Always a pleasure seeing you. >> you too. >> the next citizen. >> thank you, I'm robert hostage, neighborhoodiation which 6. >> >> I'm also an investor in that area. And I got 16 -- 16 or 17 houses within three blocks of that house. I went out and took a petition, and went to neighbors and knocked on pretty much everybody's door that would answer. I think you May it? Your packet. But, to the right, the gentleman, that house burned about seven years ago. He is the only one that I have found that is for that particular house. It actually -- two blocks down the street, it would kind of blend in this but that house does not blend in and I think the message that's being sent, if we don't make it go back to 2600 square feet, every building in town will be building bonus and attic rooms if that's what you want to call it to get the extra square foot. I don't think that's something that we need in that area. And as Mr. Glover said earlier, we wouldn't be here if all of the permits were done in the right order. We wouldn't have already had this, so that's what I wanted to kind of lead with. The permit should have been done right and we wouldn't be sitting here now talking about this issue. Thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> I live at 608 maple right behind the property 611 elm tree lane. I have been doing general contracting and renovation and commercial and residential in lexington for quite a while. Small projects, I work with building inspection. I pull permits and stay within the law and also call for inspections so this is in my backyard and this is the view if there is anyone to lighten it up this stands nearly 40 feet tall. And this is the back of the property. I watched this project develop from the end of the summer until today. Looks like the house was condemned and Mr. Vazquez got a remodel permit and then quickly demolished the entire house, as far as I know without an asbestos. And the foster alley was blocked for several days with dumpster, 20 yard containers where the remains of the house were hand packed in that. And that negatively impacts the health and safety of the neighborhood if there had to be police officers or fire trucks come down and seems like, it was wanton. This is a concrete truck. What is the date of that? That is on 11/14, that's pouring footers that I believe were not inspected. And they were formed at grade, up on grade, not two feet below. I happened to be home that day for lunch, and good thing that I was or that truck might have backed over my fence in the back of my house. The next day according to the roster, a stop-work order was issued on 11/15. >> there is 11/21, looks like they are breaking the forms down and they had building materials delivered and I'm not sure if stop work order was lived or not at that point. There is a wild west facade of the house that's left. If you look at the left wall which is the north wall, it is leaning strongly in, propped up by two by four and a right wall that's leaning strongly out and that's to the south, resting on the fence of the neighboring property. And you're actually looking at the back inside of the living room of the house. >> I think the building permit% was issued on December 14, and, if you can lighten that up, that's a two-story house, framed up with partial third full story framed up, they did a lot of work in one day on that house. They continued to build if new construction house throughout this entire time. And being outside of the permit of new construction permit. And that puts it well above the .35 florida area ratio. There is other details the about what they are calling existing footings, and distance from property lines, and some general gerry mannedderring that went on with this project. Third floor. The hilt of the ceiling joyce, upstairs, presently that is on the wall are 8 feet. As you just heard from our building inspector, they need to been 7-6. We designed that house or rather I said we continued with construction of that house, with every intention of being elastic. To meet the building codes over there. He's going to tell you that we started with the remodeling and that they had to go demo, and I also had an inspection that determined that we should take the structure down. And by the building plans we submitted. There was never either by code enforcement or the building department, that I have no writing, that ever issued a stop order on that particular house they worked with us all the single way that we can. And they showed that you they were lean, they were leaning momentarily. They did not show you the code enforcement person standing with me over there. Giving me his advice. Take them down before they hurt somebody. So, you know, once again, I think that I have shown you and even the Councilman And that other nice fellow who represents the neighborhood, they can't tell you what to build. When you buy a lot, whether it is $30,000, and we bought 300, 400,000 house, you can't do it so I don't want to get into that. My point is, we are still within every restriction of the building department, flexible now, and on their advice we stopped until we could come to you to ask for this variance and once again, I know that you're not construction people, the physical silhouette of the house, will probably not change. Because the ceilings on the inside where you said the gabel might come down and things, would probably be resolved, gain to building codes by lowering the ceiling over there. And that's about it. We have done everything that we can to make it legal. Thank you. >> thank you, sir. Any questions? Or comments? The chair will entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, make a motion relative to 18-13, to disapprove the variance to increase the floor area ratio from 1.35 to 1.52 to allow a 4500 square feet structure to remain as built, and plan neighborhood residential zone within the defined info and redevelopment area at 611 elm tree lane based on the recommendation by staff. >> thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? >> second. >> we have a second by Ms. Carter. Discussions on the motion before we vote. I would like to ask legal if we deny this application, what is the next process for the applicant? >> >> well, if you deny it they won't have a variance for from the floor area ratios in the heighth requirement in the zoning ordinance so they'll have to go through building inspection to make sure that they are compliant with those. >> all right. >> >> no discussions. Please vote. The motion carries and the application is denied. Sorry, gentlemen. The next case up on the docket, is pln-boa-18-4, tile letter schillings' request. I saw the applicant was here. It is my undersanding that there is opposition. Is that correct? >> okay. So come on up, Mr. Schilling. This process will be a little different. Recommended disapproval. So, in this instance, put your name on to the record. >> my name is tyler shelling and I'm the owner of the property at 2495 brian station road. Were you sworn in earlier? >> I was. >> what you'll do is, you can give essentially your testimony, and then we can ask questions. Tell us about the project and if for some reason we have questions, we'll ask people in and if not, we'll let the opposition and have a turn and you can do a closing argue innocent. >> what I propose to do is, have a -- bed and breakfast on this property which from my research was in compliance of the agricultural zone. The problem is, I plan on residing at the residence, I would like my aunt to run and operate on site the day by day dogs of that said bed and breakfast. As well, what I would like to do is, have the opportunity to host a conservative sized wedding or other similar events with the understanding that they be in compliance with the ordinance of the city and your approval for an event at a bed and breakfast. >> and that's in a nutshell what it is. >> okay. Is there any questions for the applicant? >> I would like to ask, it seems very simple. You would like the aunt to take care of the property and live there. >> correct. >> I understand from the staff, that the resident has to own 51% of the property. Is that going to happen, and. >> I do not plan on doing that, no. This is mainly, well, it is giving my aunt an opportunity to have employment, to live in the area that she likes and I think she's pretty suited for that I'm a father of two going on three in July, and I run a large business, and it is not conducive for me to do this day by day myself. I think it would be charming for that area to end base its beauty and to encourage others to come and witness that, what we have left of the lexington area that is still pretty. And, so, I seek an exception to have a non-owner operator operating this is the main argument, and I would like to be able to host a conservative sized event out there if possible. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> any additional questions? >> so you're not in agreement with the conditions. >> correct. >> >> which condition was that the objection to? I see it. >> and condition 6 as well because you want to host special events. >> to host an event, I would need an exception to that as well. >> also if opposition with number 7 which references the 11 conditions and the zoning ordinance and that's where the 51% rule comes in to play. >> thank you, sir. Have a seat. Stay close. And I will let opposition. How many people plan on speaking? If you could keep your comments - three to five minute, that would be appreciated. >> >> good afternoon, my name is kevin smith. I represent michael and amanda see who represent an adjacent property. I'll give a brief overview of the property, I think it is necessary to understand that back on May 17, 2017, william johnson passed away at the age of 94 years old. >> sir, you don't have to stick to the three minutes. >> for brevity and we've been here. So, this is a photo of the home on the property located at 2495 bryant station road. On the property is also a horse stable and a tobacco barn, each built in 1970 according to the pva. It grades both of the properties as a c. The following maps will showcase the surrounding area which is important to understand as it is an agricultural zone. one thing to also point out, I know that on the site plan it mentions this is a tri-level bed and breakfast, and I wanted to point that out but I'm not sure if that fits with the site plan as well. So this is the first map. This is the entire area around the propery as you can see, it is zoned ar, the star being sort of where the property is currently located. Take a look at a closer image this is sort of the properties adjacent to the property as you can see. All of this is ar zoned. Are there any conditional uses already at present around the zone? And the answer is no. You have to go to residential area to see the conditional uses in the vicinity. And on December 28, the donald schilling estate purchased this property for $485,000. Here is a sort of a photo. Going into the estate ex-for filed for conditional use to use this property as he just stated as one, a bed and breakfast the and two to host weddings and other commercial events and I would like to request that both of these be denied and I will walk through both. The comprehensive plans plainly states the intent for the ar zone is preserved the resultal character of the agricultural service area by promoting agriculture and related uses. And more specifically into the ordinances, 81e lists, and 25 clearly prohibits special events and parties related to a commercial purpose. There is no justifcation for commercial event and wedding and therefore its request must be denied. Second, the issue with the bed and breakfast. The zoning ordinance 81-d provides conditional use in the ar zone which is permitted only with the board of adjustment approve a25 listed here on the screen, state as bed and breakfast facility is one, of the conditional uses that if the facility is limited to the rental of not more than five rooms but there are major concerns with schilling's request for conditional use. Some of those have already been brought forth today, and zoning ordinance 111 defines bed and breakfast and lists the 11 conditions. First, condition numb 2, the use shall be carried out by owners with 51% more ownership. Curb lip as has been stated tyler schilling resides with his wife jennifer at 37stratford drive and his aunt also here today currently resides in the home and she states that she aims the manage the bed and breakfast as her retirement job and this clearly does does not meet then and the request must be denied. Second, condition, not require external alteration of the dwelling. It is unclear from site plan provided that any external alterations will not occur, and if any external alterations are to occur, then this clearly does not meet the condition and its request must be denied. Third, condition number 6, you shall not adversely affect the immediate neighborhood. in this instance there will be excessive trapping generation with the already high rate of the vehicle accidents on bryant station road and this will likely increase with alcoholic impaired guests. Lexington police department states that 21 vehicle accidents has occurred in the last two years alone, in the small stretch -- to briar hill. In addition the road is dangerous with the hill, and the entrance as you can see earlier, is at a 90 angle. There are concerns that guests will wrongly enter driveways of the neighbors, causing disturbances, moreover, routine functions will be disturbing with excessive noise, as they could already hear music being played on the property by a former owner's grandson who occupied the property after Mr. Johnson's death before it was sold. Fourth, condition number nine, the conditional use permit shall become null and void upon the sale or transfer of the property. This is very important, interesting point, given that this is owned by an estate. In this instance he's an ex-for, not an individual other than but merely a manager for the estate. Who is the owner? The intent of the ordinance is to allow individual owners in the zone to permit a bed and breakfast given the certain conditions that we've already worked through today. As an estate, it acts more like a commercial enterprise and not an individual owner, where in the ex-for can be changed as needed. Here if allowed, the condition -- here if allowed the condition while the estate will continue, so, what I'm trying to say is, here we have an instance where the rule clearly states that if the sale or transfer of a property occurs, then the condition no longer exists. It ends. But in this instance, it is a property own by an estate, and Mr. Tyler is stating that he's a 51% owner by being an ex-you can for, which I don't believe is any fact to that, then as an executor that can change at will. Lastly in the unfortunate circumstance this conditional use is permitted by the board, in addition to the conditions set forth by the staff recommendations, it is also desired that proper buffering or fencing around the perimeter to keep guests from crossing into and to mitigate further disruptions and second that compliance with the vehicular use area and article 18-3 be if. And that's all that I have. >> thank you for your time. >> >> thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions for council. I would hand some things to tammy but I'll do that in a minute. So, at this point, anyone else in opposition who would like to speak, please come forward and once again, state your name for the record and let me know if you are not sworn in earlier. >> my name is michael she has been and I was worn in earlier. first off I want to state that I think it is a privilege to live and own property in that area of lexington and I'm actually entirely grateful to my local neighbors who we have gotten to know over the years to welcome me into the neighborhood, so I'm greatful to be there. And, in fact I'm actually very glad that somebody has chose on the take up that property and to be there having met jennie recently, I'm very glad we met before coming to this meeting because I want to welcome wholeheartedly a new neighbor, and be a good one too. The concerns though that we bring today in opposition to the request for a bed and breakfast and accessory use for a wedding event has to do with the commercial side of business and not the desire to have a new neighborhood because I certainly do and we want to get to know our neighbors to be able to live amongst each other and to be friends. The concern about the commercial use of the property though, stems primarily due to, from my standpoint a lot of the things that kevin smith mentioned but just to reemphasize a few points, one, the conditional use of the property for a bed and breakfast the -- allowed, and especially if it is used as an accessory use to wedding event, I'm increasingly concerned about the increased traffic to the area. We looked up data for number of accidents that have occurred, many of which, we have witnessed the consequences of, damaged fences, cars on the side of the road and so forth. the road is unfortunately a pretty long, fast, a road with fast traffic. And, the increasing traffic there that a bed and breakfast or the amount of traffic it brings after a wedding event should be of concer. We have concern of people crossing over property lines in the setting for example of wedding events where they May be impaired, and crossing and trespassing into areas where there not adequate fencing to prevent someone from hopping over. I don't advocate that we have six or eight foot fencing but, that could be a concern especially when there is property across the fences such a as animals and livestock could be injured in those situations. I'm concerned about loud music. Given that say lot of the land is open, sound travels, and in the wedding event, that I would only wish for a business to be successful but if there are frequent wedding vents or once in a while, I'm concerned about noise and that you would interfere with the lives ofs no the area. And lastly, we want to be sure a lot of the -- if the bed and breakfast and accessory use for wedding evens is allowed for that there be a restrictions of which kevin mentioned a few such as making sure that there are clear demarcations between property line, adequate barriers for people who May stray beyond the property, as well as addressing things like sound and noise concerns. >> that's that's all I have, thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> next. >> I'm martha buckenner and I was sworn in. I certainly cannot represent our neighborhood as well as Dr. Sheehan, but, I'm opposed to the bed and breakfast, and especially the event center. I'm concerned about, listening to them, everyone here today, it is out of character with our scenic corridor. That bryant station and the horse farms represent. And I'm concerned about the people wanterring and coming on to our property to pet horses them that. They just pull over now as it is. So I feel like a bed and breakfast wouldn't would exacerbate that and I'm concerned about the drunk driving and the garbage and the increased traffic. Thank you for your time. >> thank you, ma'am. Next. >> I'm across the road from the property and I was sworn in. We're happy to have a new neighbor but the biggest concern is what marty pointed out is people coming in and petting the horses. And they are just going to -- that particular field that they'll be across from is for the mares and foals. We're a pdr protected farmed. People can grave by and see all of the mares and foals. A lot of stuff goes on on bryant station road. I have lived there since 1976. We don't need extra. The horses are valuable and we don't want to have any nervous animals. >> thank you, sir. Next. >> that's it. Okay. Anything extra from staff? I mean, clearly, if he's not willing to go with the conditions, doesn't want the three conditions. >> I was going to point out that I don't think that's the board has to waive any of those requirements. >> yeah, I have -- my question for staff is, I'm confused by the staff report. Because you're recommending approval and yet, the application clearly states that, he or the estate is -- the person that will be there is less than the 51% owner and there was something else as well. The last sentence should the applicant decide to live on the premises and operate the facility or should his aunt become a 51% owner, the staff would be comfortable with the recommendation of approval. But, then you go on the recommend approval so I'm confused. >> it was our impression that there was a fair amount of flexibility with him about how it was going to operate, and we also had the impression that, the ability to hold the special event was not a deal breaker, so that's why we turned that around but we made sure that in the conditions that it was very clear as to what was expected. >> yes. >> I think that number 6 and 7 of the conditions spelled out that, if we approve it, then there would be no special events or parties, ie weddings, held for commercial purposes on the subject property. In other words that's a condition that we would have to agree to. To get this condition, and we would have to comply with the facility would have to comply, and that's number seven, with all of the 11 conditions listed under the zoning ordinance. So that's -- I mean, so, if we're approving it what are we approving. We're really not -- >> based on the applicant's testimony just now, I think is not so much flexibility and we get into a disapproval based on the inability to comply with at least two of those conditions. >> maybe I didn't hear Mr. Schilling's testimony. >> I am flexible in the fact we don't have to be approved for the events I would sure like to have events and present at the weddings out there. If that's shot down I figured that it was simpler to apply one time than to come in a month and say do this now. >> so that's why that all met the application. As far as me being the executor of my grand father's estate, he died in July and this is a timing matter. There is a large estate at hand that is still in the probate period. This simply couldn't have happened unless I did it as it said. >> well, I guess my question is, one that is, we typically ask at the beginning of each one is, have you read the conditions. and have you read the staff report including the conditions. >> I have. And. >> do you agree to abide by them? >> I -- I was under the interpretation this is why I'm taking this to further appeal. Because granting -- hoping to be granted exceptions of having the non-owner operating it. Now, if that can't be met, what can -- what constitutes an owner operator if I am there and took all of these guests in at night and bake muffins in the morning, is that accepted and I go and turn in my three little ones across town? >> we don't get into that kind of detail. Fortunately. >> we can't answer that question. But all we can ask you is, do you agree to abide by the conditions, and if you do agree to abide by the conditions, two of those conditions are, that the operator has to be a 51% owner of the facility or abide by the 11 conditions in the zoning ordinance. >> when you say 51% owner of the facility, does that necessarily mean the property? That's the operating business not the actual ground that it is owned. >> it is the owner of the business not the actual property. >> Miss Jones, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. >> the condition says, and it has been 111 of the zoning ordinance that this used to carry on -- >> shall be carried on by owners with 51% ownership. >> it should be clearly incidental and secondary for -- which indicates that you live there but it goes on the say the use shall be carried on by owners with at least 51% of the ownership interest and who reside on the premises. So, I mean, I can tell you that there have been instances in the past where this board has not approved a conditional use for bed and breakfast because the 51% owner did not reside on the premises. So, based on the testimony I don't know how you get around that. And, then, whether or not the accessory special event uses are going to be agreed to or not, they are prohibited uses in the ar zone. So under the article that -- article 825, so, I mean, -- those are waived and said I don't care if I have weddings or not there you still have to comply with the dwelling on the premises is 51%. >> that's the way that I'm reading it and I'm reading it a as a condition of -- so it seems to me if we even if we grant for a conditional use. >> I don't know based on the testimony that you heard today that, it could comply because, and I'll tell you that we have denied this request in the past, and have been upheld -- >> based on the testimony. >> the owner of the property did not live there, thenned the daughter to operate it and they said no, 51% ownership interest party mist live on the property, and reside there, and -- >> that's the way that I read it. >> it is not just -- you have to live there. That's the way that it is written. >> and it is incidental, it is incidental and secondary of the use for dwelling purposes. >> it is incidental to living there. So, if you don't live there, it can't be incidental to liveing there. >> you live there or your aunt has to own 51%. >> and for the record of airporting air b&b would did completely allowed and we can hoot and holler until 11:00 P.M. Every night. >> I don't think that's germane to -- our question. >> how is that -- sorry. >> >> any more questions for the applicant? Mr. Smith, please. If you want to. >> make one clarification as we go into this. That as you look at ownership, again, the owner of this property is an estate, it has not officially gone all the way through probate. We do not know who the owner of this property will ultimately be. And so as you think through this, there is not a 51ers percent owner, the owner is thes at the state, not an individual. >> Mr. Shelling is not a 51% owner. He's the manager helping as a fiduciary of an estate that is still in probate. >> Mr. Smith, not having looked at the probate records, I'll say generally speaking, an executor does not own the real estate, it is whoever the heirs in the will. >> I agree. >> okay. So, any questions? Everyone is getting tired. Even Mr. Glover is done asking questions. All right, so, my sense, Mr. Schilling if you want to come up real fast. To the podium. Will your aunt at any point in the near future own 51% of this property? >> it was not intended, no. I inherited it 100%. >> okay. >> we'll have to figure out something. >> if we deny this today, I believe that they cannot come back for a year unless it is a different -- >> if you deny it today, your bylaws say it has to be put off for a year unless someone appeals to you and you determine that -- >> okay. So, would Mr. Schilling be in a position to postpone indefinitely or how would that work? >> I strongly recommend against an indefinite postponement. It is really awkward. If he chooses to withdraw at this point that would only be a six-month wait. >> okay. >> if he wanted to reapply. >> so,. >> something would have to change for him to reapply. In other words, they we would have to be -- >> not on a withdrawal. >> well, if nothing changed. >> oh, yes. >> then it wouldn't do any good to reapply. >> I would say if he come back with the same facts, he would more than likely not be granted a review. >> that's true if you but if he chose to withdraw today, and then the estate was probated and something changes and someone that has the right ownership interest wants to operate and live there, he would be able to come back if you all make a determination and disapprove this today, then he would be by your bylaws barred from coming back for -- >> six months withdraw. >> if you withdraw. >> right. >> well, I mean, I don't see me giving half a million dollars to someone even if it is my aunt. I mean. >> okay. >> I'll do something else with the property. That's allowed. >> well, with that, the chair will entertain a motion. >> >> and Ms. Jones, since the staff's recommended now change to maybe disapproval, do we need any additional finding of facts if we were to disapprove the motion or could we rely upon the testimony? >> I think that you're going to have to make findings for disapproval because. >> I Mr. Chair, I move that we disapprove tyler schilling's request for conditional use to establish a bed and breakfast, and to host weddings and events access accessory to facility in the ar zone at based on two reasons: based on actually three reasons. Based on the testimony we heard today, before the board, second,% special events parties festivals and concerts and children's rides related to a commercial purpose are prohibited in the ar zone pursuant to article 8.1e25. Of the zoning ordinance. And would not allow weddings or other special events and last, number three, an owner with 51% of -- 51% ownership interest must reside on the property and use it for dwelling purposes pursuant to article 1.11 of the zoning ordinance. And the thank you. >> thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? Second, Mr. Clark. Any discussion on the motion? And in that case, please register your votes. The motion is approved and application is denied. Which takes us to our next matter on the docket, which is pln-boa-1814. I believe the applicant is here. Sir. And there is opposition. Okay, great. So please come up to the podium for us and introduce yourselves. We'll run through some niceties and you can tell us about your project. >> >> my project is -- >> staff recommended approval, and the report is 8 conditions have you seen the report in the conditions? >> I have seen those and agreed to them. >> there must be a value puts on this before they can go to auction. the prior owner of this home had a home business in there, it was set up and ran a small law firm out of there. So, there is a history of being -- there being a small business in this home. This would be contained to the garage area where there is a workbench to inspect the firearm and the value of the those. I have cameras, mics and so forth to do that and actually most of these take place off site because we're talking about firearm collections in excess of a quarter million dollars so I'm not wanting to bring those on to the property. The primary reason for having this at the home address is in order to have an ffl, you have to give an address. So in order to have a firearms license and a part of what I would be doing is taking those firearms to an auction company or other places so I could be in legal possession of them, and possibly, have them overnight out of state. That's all I have. I wanted to keep this concise and thank you for your consideration. >> >> one second, sir. Just in case there are any questions. Does anyone have any questions from the applicant? We're processing now some letters that we have received. So if you don't have any questions, have a seat for main and let's look through these and then, we May have questions for you. And if not, we'll have the opposition. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> what type of fire arounds do you general lip appraise. >> typically my interest is in italian firearms firearms that engraved. Imam a trap shooter, and, I use firearms that are very expensive expensive and that's one of the reasons that I got into this is, in order to buy for myself, I wanted to make sure that I was making a good purchase and it is why someone typically makes the step into firearms appraisal, business or learning. These are engraved firearms that like one slot gun 20,000 to 250,000 dollars. So. >> so they are shotguns generally? >> >> shotguns -- typically. >> similar to a shotgun. >> shotguns could be rifles, my primary interest is in and the clientele is mostly at trap shooting events and sporting clay events so they would be primarily shotguns. There would be no fully automatic weapons. I wouldn't have that type of license or anything like that. >> on the license, what does your license limit you on what you can -- >> appraise it. >> what I can appraise would be anything, now, taking it into my possession, and keeping it overnight, it would be limited to pistols or rifles, shotguns, so that require as different license. A $10,000 fee. I don't have any intention to do that. >> the next question on the list is, do you -- are items stored on the premises, generally home how many or what kind? >> >> none at this time. But, I would have the ability to do that. Now, I don't want to do that, from a liability standpoint. Because bringing somebody's quarter million dollar $500,000 collection, into my home or business, would put me at risk there of -- whatever, without -- so I have to intent of doing that. >> you do appraising or is there any purchasing on the premises? >> there is no purchasing on the premises. >> >> I think that -- those are all of the questions in this letter. >> >>>> are you currently licensed or hold a certificate from the at. F? >> no. >> but you intend to? >> I do and in order to go ward, this has to be approved because they have to have a physical address in order to come to and inspect and in order to approve that. >> is have you been in this business before or is this a new venture? >> this is a new venture. >> >> one more thing. How do these guns get to your house? >> do you pick them up? Do people come and get them? >> right now now, I go to wherever the firearms are, and appraise them there. So, and that is pretty much my intent is to do that. So, a gun smith has to apply for this same type of ffl, in order to be a gun smith and keep a firearm overnight because after they keep it overnight they have to go through the atf's process of making sure that they are in compliance with all of the forms and that the person is not a felon, and all of the things that you go through when you buy a firearm. So, if the -- if -- I don't take possession and keep them overnight. Same way with a gun smith. I don't have to go through that process. So I would rather not go through that process most of the time, but, like if I were to go to walk out on option in illinois, or, to an auction, a big auction in maine, and wanted to take the firearms there, I would have to have an ffl, because I'm going to be in to is exof someone else's firearms overnight. So that's the main reason it is not that cause a bunch of traffic in the neighborhood. It won't even be noticed because, there is not a lot of this. This is going to be more of a retirement business. >> thank you. >> any additional questions? Okay. You guys can come on up. Whoever wants to speak that is. >> my name is bill moody. Thank you to the board and staff. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. And county government for allowing us to speak today for this purpose. we own -- my wife and I who is sitting back here with me, we live at 4890 keene road, and we would like to thank the board as I mentioned for allowing us to be here, and, we own property, a choose and cut christmas tree farm called christmas memories tree farm near the 2648 property where the proposed farm the firearm appraisal will occur. Our concern is for the safety of families and particularly those with children. Some of these families visit our farm throughout the year from 8:00 A.M., to 9:00 P.M., monday through saturday, in the warmer months of the year. They visit to conduct nature studies, science fair projects, take family pictures, learn about the growing and management of christmas trees, and choose that perfect christmas tree. We also have kindergarten classes who come with the field trips or come to -- to hear story of their christmas tree. Even though 2648 idlewood drive is not adjoining our property, there is a short approximately 120 foot stubbed in street, called inside drive which is opposite the 2648 address that leads into our driveway. People often enter this street and turn around if they are lost or missed the house number they were looking for. This then could bring those possessing firearms next to our driveway which is even more the reason that we're concerned about approving this type of business. This would be near an active farm or children and families of all ages come to enjoy nature and the outdoors. and I have one other question that I would like to address this primarily through the staff. If we approve this proposal today, how will bit monitored, and how this business would be, and how will the appraiser show accountability for what he's stating because he was kinden of vague I thought in some of the things that you asked, Mr. Chairman, about type of guns and the different things that were raised in the e-mails that were the sent. And for example, and I quote this out to of the proposal. He expect approximately ten customers per year will be coming to his home on 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. On tuesday and thursday. So that is the end of my statement. Thank you. >> >> any questions? I'll be good entertain. >> yes, I do. We own a firearm. >> don't any of your neighbors own firearms? >> I'm sure they do. >> >> I will say I go to n -- and I drive by your christmas tree. >> oh, do you? >> every time, I'm like, of there is a christmas tree there. >> we have been there for -- we built the house in '69 so we were there a long time before our neighbors, our good neighbors, subdivision came in with the subdivision. They moved in, I think, in the mid-0s, but thank you. >> to answer some of your concerns, we are, if there were approved, it would be approved with certain conditions and -- >> understand that. >> such as, no discharge or sale of firearms and I will let Mr. Marks speak to the enforcement mechanism and how that occurs. >> well, by law we have to inspect it once a year, any conditional use. To be frank, the best enforcement results from input from the neighbors if they see things going on that appear not to comply with the conditions and we expect much more frequently and dig in much more deeply. So, that is pretty much how the enforcement process works. >> and if the staff were to find a violation of the conditional use, then it would come back before us, if it is not corrected for a hearing in which case we could then revoke his right to sell the -- to appraise the firearms? >> I understand that, and but my question I guess is, once a year an ecktion, if the gentleman says that he's going to open from 5:00 to 7:00, and tuesday think saturday, and you're just there once a year, how do you approve that that actually happened and what our -- I envision there could happen. I don't say it will. I'm just saying that it might. Somebody come in and call and say, I can get there at 5:00 but I can get there at 4:00 or three clock this afternoon, are you going to be at home? And then, the staff is not going to know that, you're not going to know that. And. >> there are so many things that I think are loose ended in this, and that's my point in raising the question. ,. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the chair will entertain a motion. >> I move to approve motion 18-14, insulin enterprises and consulting llc. Request for a conditional use permit to operate a home based business, appraisal or firearms and a planned neighborhood residential zone 2648 idlewood drive based on the staff recommendations, and subject to the 8 conditions listed by staff. >> >> thank you, Ms. Carter. Second? Please register a vote once it comes on the screen. >> motion carries. Application is approved. Good luck with your project. Okay. Mr. Booth. It has been a long day. >> our next -- oh, no. Mr. Booth is back here in the corner. Our last item is administrative review for pl-boa-18-7 request for administrative review. And the staff has recommended disapproval. So, if you want, have a seat. I understand that you have had a recent accident so -- >> yes. >> okay. Staff will give their report, then you can give yours, then, we'll have opposition, give theirs and then, you can do a closing. >> thank you, sir. >> >> this is a three part appeal, relating two adjoining ten-acre lots, right at the intersection of haley road and interstate 64, in the agricultural rural ar zone. I'll go through -- all of the three appeals are interrelate but I'll go through.% first the administrative review is requested to, for this board to determine being able to host on a commercial basis special events such as weddings or parties and reunions, should be allowed as a conditional use. In cases where there is an interpretation issue, with how things are worded in the zoning ordinance, that's ground for the board of adjustment to weigh in, and in this case there is real flow interpretation issue. It is special events on a commercial basis or just flat out prohibited in the ar zone. And the reference is article 8-e25. And, it is worded clearly enough that there is no interpretation issue so I don't think that the board has any leeway, can do much with that administrative review. The second appeal on tainting a conditional use offer those special events as described. As a conditional use. Now, that only makes sense if the board make as determination that it is allowed as a conditional use. So, it is pretty much a moot question if the board upholds the staff recommendation. We have written that up for disapproval based on the previously mentioned prohibition as well as the fact that that type of conditional use is not listed as a possible conditional use in the ar zone. So, that's it for -- two, the conditional use for the special events. That brings us to the fourth aspect of this, the conditional use request for church. And also, a conditional use to be able to hold seasonal activities that in our opinion to some extent were not really specified in the application, but the applicant can clarify that. And I guess the main issue for the conditional use for the church and seasonal activity there is a lack of information in the application. The church request is especially concerning because of the intent to use one of the old larger barns to establish the church. The church is an assembly-type use and all kinds of code requirements for public safety, that go into that and then, I'm just not sure that it is realistic to be able to turn an old barn into a church facility that is going to meet all of those code requirements so we have a big concern with that. Related concern is, whether or not, whether it is intentional or just kind of something that thoughtfully happened along the way to hold the special events that were described as part of the administrative review, just as accessory to the church. And how all of that is going to interplay so that is a big concern of the staff too, so, we're anxious to hear more from the applicant about how they think that is going to work. and in general, there is just not much information there to go on. We would need a lot more information to make a recommendation either up or down on the church application and the seasonal activities application. So that's why we're recommending postponement of that part. So, that's it for us. And I think a lot more value will come from hearing from the applicant about the vision, for this property. >> thank you, Mr. Marks. Mr. Booth. >> were you here when I swore everybody in? >> I was. >> if you could your name on the record and tell us about the application. >> I would. >> michael booth, I hope that you all can hear me. My voice doesn't sound too bad. I was recently in an accident, so you'll have to for give me for that. We recently bought the property at haley road off of exit 87. I wish that I wasn't having to stand here before you today, the first thing that I think is very important for everyone in this room, and a portion of that is because of some of the reasons that they outlined the board did outline in there letter of disapproval, but, also, in addition to that, the recent accident that I just had. We need to withdraw portion. I want to withdraw on that. For two reasons. The property was always known as the haunted house and paint ball war zone, blah, blah, blah. okay. So, I always watched the property as as I have driven up 64 and I think that nip with all of the surrounding counties that travel up and down or, when I tell them about our farm, when I'm trying to get people there to work, or to do the different things that we have had done, it is very easy, I say, you know, where that haunted house was? And they were like, yeah. Right. So that's how they find it. Okay. So, with all of that being said, when we bought the property, we bought for two reasons: as you all know, it is some beautiful gorgeous property in that area of fayette county. We're very fortunate. I have had the opportunity to purchase the property. When we bought the property, we bought it primarily number one for its location. Number two, because of what had already been done there on this beautiful agricultural residential zoned property. Okay. So, I totally understand, I'm not one of those people, I understand that we all have rules. It is how our society must succeed. And, I am never that one to break those rules or even really try to be in those rules but I feel like, that we fell into a very bad position in this entire thing. I didn't ask to be put in that position. Maybe I should have done more work. I have never owned property in fayette county before. Maybe I should have done more investigations. I just assumeed that if you were allowed and Mr. Walker I sigh him sitting over here to my right, him and his son were the previous owners of the property, if you were allowed to host a haunted house tour and this paint ball zone, going on there that the board approved, why would I being a common citizen not think that I could host beautiful weddings or family-type events. I'm not even promoting just weddings, I'm talking about totally family united events. My husband and I be it as it May have bought this property. We have two little foster boys and I plan on retiring right there. And, I want to raise my two bill children that are six months and 16 months old on that farm. And it is about me being able to stay home. God lab good to me. I work all of my life and I have a nice bank account thank the lord but at the same time, I'm only 48 years old and I would like to supplement that income and teach my children about a farm life, and I am not looking to raise cows and corn and tobacco and all of that stuff. But I can definitely introduce them and other children in this area by the project that we have in our mind and what we tried to outline and I do apologize, if the board was confused about some of the things that we wanted to do with all of the that being said, the -- being able to produce my daughter, my 28-year-old adopted daughter, will be getting married in the fall. We have did fabulous renovation on a barn falling down and I spent a fortune on the beautiful old about 150-year-old log cabin that sits on this property that was literally the ceiling was rotted, that the roof was rotted, and have fell in and the floors out -- rotted out. The cabin was at the point of being pushed over and destroyed and so was the barn. Both of those have been resurrected, and they will look -- I would compare them to anything from the county. That would be in that particular area I guess. So, -- >> if I could interrupt you real quickly. A couple of items. Number one, are you still want ing to do weddings and other items on a commercial bay us? >> yes. >> because, okay. >> because according to the zoning ordinance, that is not allowed in ar. There not much that we can do about that. >> okay. This is my. >> the whole thing that brings me to this and I understand that, of course I did not understand that when we spent the unbelievable amount of money on the purchase of this property. And on the renovation up to this point. With that all being said, I didn't know that I needed that in that zone, and I guess, the biggest reason why I didn't know that I needed that, because this board did approve the walkers to do what they had done. If you can run around and I'm so soar I have, and I mean this is no slanderous way to the walkers. If you can run around on a beautiful farm, with a cabin that was falling in, the roof was falling in, the floor was falling in, and you can tour adults and children and families, I guess, through this cabin and this barn that was a haunted house and they permitted that, because simply because it was a pumpkin patch. I don't know how much pumpkin patch it was. But, they were allowed to do all of those things. So why would I have not thought when we looked at the farm and knowing what had taken place there, bithought that I'm not think that I can host a family reunion there? >> well, you can host your family reunion there. >> exactly. >> you just can't use it for commercial purposes. >> they didn't host the haunted house for their family. >> all I can tell you is that, the ordinance says what the ordinance said. It is passed by the city council. There is knock about that issue that we can do on that issue. >> okay. >> and you also wanted the seasonal activities and I think that the pumpkin patch type activities, seasonal. >> yes. >> my understanding from Mr. Marks' testimony is that, he is recommended postponement because he doesn't have enough information to tell us yes they approve or disapprove. That particular use on this property. At this time. >> >> is that the church church or Mr. Marks? >> he. >> come on up because things have changed a little bit. >> >> you can come up but I don't want Mr. Booth having to move around too much. >> I'm okay. >> >> we needed more information on both but the church has been withdrawn now so we're back to seasonal activities. >> the staff feels they need more information on the seasonal activities. >> oh, yes. And I hate for him to be penalized by what happened before on the property but the haunted house stuff clearly was not the intent of what the board approved as a conditional use. Several years ago, it was supposed to be a typical seasonal farm activities kind of thing, the pumpkin patch stuff. There wasn't a condition applied that said you can't do all of this other stuff that -- I mean, it wasn't on anybody's radar screen but when that started happening, we had discussions about whether that is something that we'd have to enforce and the decision was, that there was no specific prohibition based on what the board approved so, our hands were pretty much tied. >> that is why, this time around, we need be a lot more careful about exactly what is going to happen. >> okay. >> all right. >> okay. So, Mr. Booth, come back up. So the staff has recommended postponement for you to get with the staff and give them a better idea of what you would be doing on this seasonal activities. >> yes. >> okay. >> and so, it doesn't mean that you have to do that but that was the staff's recommendation to us today. But, if you want, you May carry on with your presentation and we can let the opposition and the we can have a vote, but, if things get more problem at fix we turn down an application. >> >> we're doing to do a postponement for now. >> okay, here is the thing, so I really don't know, guys, where we're at, and, I have state mid-case the best way that I can. With all of that being said, if your position is, I mean, I did not pay what we pay for this property, to -- I have a pumpkin patch. That's not my hope. That's only a smalling from ament of it. And, I still snapped the position that this -- stand in the position, this board did approve those active is to be permitted on that farm. And, whether those -- there was other things that went on there or not, that shouldn't have, that is not for me to decide. That's not my problem. I'm just a victim of it. and, if that's the case, we will just have to go to court because I can't -- I mean, I'm not going to be the one that loses on this. I'm not. Not because someone else made a bad decision and did not follow through with what they needed to do to make sure of that the previous owners did what they said they were going to do. Because I mean, all day long, about haunted house and a paint ball war zone, that will never fall under a pumpkin patch. And I mean, I have the information to prove that I mean, there's no discrepancy to be had. >> whose -- Mr. Booth, these are the kind of details that could and should be discussed with staff before it is brought before this board, and, that's probably the reason why staff recommends a postponement. So you all can have a better more detailed discussion about what you're requesting to do with this property that needs our approval. We have to have a concrete proposal before us, so we can vote up or down on it. We don't really get into the nitty gritty details beyond what is testified and what staff tells us. So, the request for a postponement is for your benefit, so that you can have an additional time and better opportunity to discuss with them what specifically you want to do with this property that is -- that May or May not be permitted by the vonning ordinance. >> >> okay. and well, with that being said, the zoning ordinance ties or hands, 8-1e25 prohibits events parties or festivals and concerts related to a commercial nurse the ar zone. As long as you're zoned ar, I don't see how this board would be able to approve you to do events, party, festivals and concerts for commercial purposes. >> you know that all goes back to the same thing. I mean. >> that's an issue for your capsule member. >> right. Well, but I mean, I'm not here to change the laws. I can't do that that's not where I'm going with this. All that I know is, is that the previous owners, we go back to the same thing. That the business that they conducted there, it was not agricultural basted business so how can -- if this board somehow saw fit, and I don't know how, but how they got around that, it was still a commercial -- when they put people through there on a haunted house tour, it was still a commercial, that was a commercial-type business. That was not agricultural. >> that these are things that many of the conditional uses that we approve expire with the sale of the property. And so, the fact that the previous owner of the property May or May not have been doing certain things, that May or May not have been permitted by the ordinance, is of is of no concern to us, in your application. We can only consider your application, we don't consider previous owner because the owner doesn't own the property any? More. That's not our concern. >> and even if the owner were operating some facility with a non-permitted use, we couldn't condone continuing that use just with a new owner because the previous owner had an unpermitted use. The fact that somebody was doing something that they shouldn't have been doing, with this property, before is not an excuse for us to approve future use that not permitted. >> okay. >> >> does that complicate it enough? >> very. >> very. >> >> before you go, what would you like us to do? >> well, I'll accept the postponement but, I'll talk with him but it still sounds like, and we'll do the postponement or the pumpkin patch or the other items, but it is still sounds like I'm going to be standing in front of the people the next time with an attorney fighting this in court because I will not -- I will not lose for $150 newhouse thousand because of a mistae that somebody else made before me. >> so, so but today, I'll accept the postponement. >> yes. >> okay. >> you guys have an objection to the postponement? >> well, Mr. Booth have a seat. Come on up to the podium. Put your name on the record. let us know your objection. >> >> good evening, since it is past 6:00, Mr. Chairman and members of the board and staff, for the record I'm chris clindenen, we are representing walker properties, and it has been end carved to you that's Mr. Walker. We would like to object for the record. I mean, frankly, we have been sitting here for five hours, and ten minutes, or getting on that, and I understand that there was a heavy agenda today and we're here in opposition to the application, and frankly, my client postponed a trip to florida just to be here on this specific day because this was the date that we were given, not that it is a hardship, but, this was important to him. Frankly, I had a whole presentation prepared, but, I don't know that I need to. I just want to address a couple of thing. I need to be clear on a couple of things. First, as far as the church, my understanding is that proposal, that part of the application has been withdrawn, is that correct? So we do not need to address that. >> yes, that's on the record. >> and second we want to agree with the staff at this point, and echo the comments that have been voiced by the Chairman, of the zoning ordinance permits, does not permit this, it specifically prohibits the special events weddings and parties and so on, on an ongoing basis. The last one that I want to make is this application is kind of like a moving target, and, I am not quite sure what is left of the application. Minding is that, -- my understanding is that it was here for sort of a -- for the board to make an interpretation or potentially rewrite the zoning ordinance. And then, if you were inclined to do that, which I don't think that the board has the authority to do, but if you were inclined to do that, then make a ruling on the conditional uses of special events, wedding receptions, parties, festival, whatever. That was my understanding of what was in front of the board today. And then, third, there was an application to establish a church, and if that's been withdrawn, I'm not sure what we have left. I'm not sure how we got to seasonal events. >> Mr. Marks, with seasonal events listed in the application? Was it in the report? >> yes, there were. >> okay. And that's how we're there. >> so, any other items that you want to bring to our attention before we discuss? >> no. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> thanks, sir. Okay. I'm inclined to -- the staff had recommended postponement so it was on the agenda as such. I am comfortable allowing a postponement of this application until March 12. Mr. Marks. >> do you want to go ahead and take action on the administrative review part of this? >> I think that would probably be beneficial. If you when ahead and discussed the administrative review portions. >> my understanding is if we disapprove the first staff recommendation we don't even need to take up the second, is that the case? >> or Ms. Jones, do them both? >> well, I think that, the disapproval on the administrative pale is the administrative appeal is an interpretation of article 81-e of the zoning ordinance that is prohibited uses and as you have addressed correctly, that is what council has enacted, and, I don't, you know, I think that you can address that one but I think what you have heard here today, in Mr. Booth's testimony and then also in their application, of what they filed was they are -- and they May not street addressed it in the most clear manner but I think they are asking for some seasonal activities, and, so I think that you could decide on the administrative request for an interpretation of what 825e, does it mean these things or not. And just say, you're not going to readdress that because that's -- that is a clear interpretation in the council enacted it based on the staff's reasoning here. But then I think that you can also postpone on the seasonal activity which is will give Mr. Booth an opportunity to talk with the staff, about under the new recreational text amendment what that might mean on this property, how it might coincide with living on the property, and give him a better idea if it is something that would, if there are things that I think -- I think that it was unclear and complicated by the administrative review request and the request for was withdrawn, so, if he's interested in doing that I think that you can postpone on the seasonal activities, and that doesn't precludes the ruling on administrative appeal because the administrative appeal is asking you all to reinterpret what the ordinance says, and. >> isn't that really a question of our jurisdiction? I mean, if the ordinance says these activities are prohibited, then I don't know how we have jurisdiction to say that they are permitted and so wouldn't that go to the question of what we can decide, and what we can't decide. >> right, and if you deny or disapprove the administrative appeal, you're just saying, that's a prohibited activity under the ordinance and we can't decide it. It doesn't mean that there is not other things within the ordinance and the ar zone that he can't discuss with staff that might fall under seasonal activities, now, at the end of the day, whether or not that comes out to be anything he's interested in doing on his property, I can't answer that but, I don't think that saying it is out of our purview to say we can extend beyond what is prohibited in the ordinance, by the council, is saying that he can't still have the opportunity to consider seasonal active I in an ar zone relating to those active reare defined and enacted by the council. It applied to ar zone. If that makes any sense. >> yes, I think that, the original application, asked for weddings and other special events or some language of that nature. And to the extent that. >> also talked about growing flow ires and plants on the farm and corn and mums and pumpkins and sharing with children, and, I mean, those -- >> it could be permitted. >> I don't know. I think that is what the staff is saying, we need to have more definition and more specific discussions so we can look at the recreational text amendment, what is allowed and not allowed if you live on that farm as farming activity or related to -- and, the answer still May not be what the applicant wants, but, if he's willing to have that discussion with the staff, I think that, you can allow that. You don't have to, I mean, you can go ahead and disapprove it all according to the this if you would like. >> any question is or real little a question of our authority to, I mean, if we took up the issue of the -- if question took up the appeal, we have two choices. We can either grant the appeal or deny the appeal. And it sound like that, our denial would be based on the fact that, the zone prohibits special event, parties and festivals and concerts and such. I don't know what our approval of the appeal would be based on? >> so, if we don't have a choice, then I don't think we have jurisdiction. In other words we can't hear the appeal. >> well. >> that is my first question. The second is, if we -- since all of this is one application, it is divided into two parts and the second is a conditional use to offer these events and we could only grant that if we deny the first application, seems to me. So seems to me that we shouldn't -- that we should postpone everything on the off chance that if we make a determination on the administrative review, we might preclude productive discussions between Mr. Booth and the staff on what he can do with the property. And I wouldn't won't do that in the case there is something that they come up with that would not be prohibited by the ordinance. Do you understand what I'm saying. >> I do understand what you're saying, and I think that it is a little bit confusing and let me see if this helps you one way or the other. I think that, in an administrative review, what the staff is saying is that we've advised an applicant, under the ordinance, this is not permissible. Soar this is not allowed and this is our interpretation. And the applicant is saying, I think that the staff is wrong, in their interpretation, and so then they appeal it to you all, and I don't think that, I mean, I could be wrong and if I am, I think if they are asking you to redefine the ordinance, I don't think that is in your -- >> Miss Jones, I think one thing that Mr. Glover is getting to is that we don't exactly know what they are asking for us to review on appeal, because I'm not 100% certain what would fall in to the special events, clearly weddings, but, I would think would fall into special events. But, I'm not sure what other activities at this point they are proposing that we're telling them no, it is prohibited for anything to be done in this area other than the special event which is clearly, if the ordinance said no special events we can make a determination and you May not have special events but what exactly they are proposing are special events. That we would be making a determination or prohibited. >> we don't want to -- in the process of upholding what the staff has interpreted, from the ordinance, in the process of doing that we don't want to prohibit those discussions, those further discussions and the reasons why we're postponing the second part of his application. So I don't want to paint with two broad of a brush on the first administrative review, and deny -- inadvertently din what they might come up with with. >> and I understand that Mr. Marks, and you know, they have had a discussion with the applicant or I have had none, so, he May have something to add. (Please stand by for captioning) You he had a null and void condition in it. So, in that means that that conditional use was granted, on those two lots, along with other lots maybe, but, the null and void condition said that when the property -- the property is transferred to another party, that that conditional use was no longer allowed. Now that doesn't get into whether or not what was done under that old conditional use was permissible or got out of hand or whatever. And also, it doesn't get into the recreational text amendment discussion and the redefining of the uses that happened maybe after that conditional use had been granted. So, I wanted to put that out there because, it is confusing sometimes because some of them have that condition and some of them do not. >> and I think that's a good reason for the postponement is of so we can see that prior conditional use, see whether there was a null and void provision to take into consideration the recreational ordinance. >> the other conditonal use is null void. There is no question about that. The property changed hands. >> we can't change it. We can't override, and I don't -- I don't think, unless you tell me differently. I don't think that we can say that they are permitted in the zoning ordinance says they are prohibited but within the -- obviously we have some jurisdiction or the question wouldn't be before us so rather than preclude what might come from further discussions, I think that we just should not decide that first question until we hear the results of the further discussions. And we won't forget that we've had this discussion. >> okay. So, I think the discussion is postponeing the whole thing, we have heard from applicant and the objectors so I'll entertain a motion. >> I understand Mr. Glover's position and his argument and I'll object to this because, when I previously objected, what was for the board was we're going to, I think, consider what was recommended by the staff, to disapprove on the administrative review, disapprove on the conditional uses for the special events. Church has been withdrawn, but now we're taking up the seasonal activities, and that would be the only question postponed and heard. And now I'm hearing that we're going to postpone everything and reconsider it at another hearing and I want to object to that I am urging the board to disapprove the first -- disapprove on the administrative review, and because it is not within the board's purview. And also was addressing that that you cannot hear it and second, if you, because the way that it is -- we essentially want you to say that despite the fact thatness the zoninged or nan, we want to overrule the zoning ordinance and say it is okay. Which can't be done and because of that specific prohibition, I think that there needs to be a ruling, a disapproval on the special events, weddings and parties and things like that, the church has been withdrawn and that's in the record. So, all of that would be heard at a subsequent board of adjustment meeting would be, whether or not there is an application for seasonal activities and what those might be. So I hope that I'm being clear. >> you are. >> and your objections are all noted on the record. Thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> so, with that being said, I'll entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair I move that we postpone boa-18-7 michael booth's request for everything that he requested. >> except for the church. >> except for the church. The request for the church is withdrawn. >> do I have a second? >> need a time you the frame for postponements. >> sorry. We do, March 12. >> orders the an an. >> what does the applicant wish? 30 days. >> >> March 12. >> thank you Mr. Glover. Motion as amended on the floor. Do I have a second? And I have a second put put that down as Mr. Clark for the record. Any discussion? All right, hearing none, please register your votes. Motion carries. We'll have this hearing and with the postpone we'll not have to have all of the evidence resubmitted necessarily. But you will need talk with staff and March 12 will be the hearing date. Thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. Sorry for your time of waiting. So now we're to board items. Any board member wish to present anything at this time? Okay. Perfect. And we, Mr. Glover or was not on the agenda, I can't recall now, we were supposed toe welcome a chairperson, vice chairperson and secretary. Each January for the coming year. We did not do that last month at our meeting. So, it was not on the agenda so that is up for the items currently at present. Officers are myself as chair, Ms. Witman as secretary and Ms. Jones, do we need to do each one individually and I will note that chad is not here so he can easily be the chair. [Laughter] >> it is up to the board. Cup do them as slate or one by one. >> I'll make a motion that we select brendan gross as President, Ms. Glover as -- not President But -- chair and glover as assistant chair and joan wall street itman as secretary. >> thank you, we have a motion on the floor. Waiting for. >> do we have a second? Ms. Carter seconds so we have first and second. Any discussions? All right, hearing none let's say, aye in favor and raise your hand. Opposed. All right, hearing none, it passes. And that is -- no, no problem, Mr. Clark. Do we have any items from staff that we need to address at this time? No, maybe technology issues and our next meeting is March 12, 2018. It has been a long day and I'm looking forward to gaveling us out. Thank you, large ladies and gentlemen. (End of proceedings in in >> >> >> >> >>