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

>> >> >> >> >>