# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - July 12, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 12, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4562 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4562?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-07-12 - **Last revised**: July 12, 2018 - **Length**: 11,798 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on July 12, 2018, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed five agenda items during the session, all of which were approved, including four amendment requests (AMD) for various development projects and one plat revocation matter. The meeting included consideration of development amendments for Lakeview Estates Units 2B & 2E, Chesapeake Equine, Sunny Slope Unit 1-A, and the Rice, Brent & Hafley Property (The Human Bean), as well as the Mary Jane Gallaher Plat Revocation. Throughout the proceedings, the commission conducted nine motions and votes while hearing five public comments from community members regarding the proposed developments and planning matters. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 12, 2018 meeting: • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee • Frank Penn • William Wilson **Absent:** • Larry Forester No members arrived late to the meeting. Eight of nine members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The commission conducted nine votes during the July 12, 2018 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously with 8 members present. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the June 14, 2018 minutes, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **PLAN 78-253F Postponement Request** [timestamp: 10:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to deny the postponement request for the Mary Jane Gallaher plat revocation, seconded by Frank Penn. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **PLN-MJSUB-18-00017 Postponement** [timestamp: 20:00] Mike Owens motioned to postpone the Eastland Parkway Subdivision to August 9, 2018, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **PLN-MJDP-18-00047 Withdrawal** [timestamp: 25:00] Frank Penn motioned to withdraw the Cave Hill Place Townhomes amendment, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The withdrawal was approved unanimously 8-0. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 30:00] Karen Mundy motioned to approve the consent agenda with findings on access easement for Lakeview Estates, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **PLN-MJDP-18-00052 Amendment** [timestamp: 40:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve the Rice, Brent & Hafley Property (The Human Bean) amendment with 14 conditions as identified by staff, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **PLAN 78-253F Revocation** [timestamp: 50:00] Will Berkley motioned to revoke the Mary Jane Gallaher plat due to court order, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **Officer Elections** [timestamp: 60:00] Mike Owens motioned to elect commission officers, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed unanimously 8-0, electing William Wilson as Chairperson, Frank Penn as Vice Chairperson, Carolyn Plumlee as Secretary, and Karen Mundy as Parliamentarian. **Secretary Delegation** [timestamp: 65:00] Karen Mundy motioned to delegate the Secretary's duties to the Director of Planning, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the commission during the public comment period, primarily requesting postponements or withdrawals of agenda items. **Wayne Collier** [timestamp: 10:00] requested a one-month postponement for the Mary Jane Gallaher plat to allow additional time to gather more information and documents regarding the property's history. **Bruce Simpson** [timestamp: 15:00] spoke in opposition to the postponement request for the Mary Jane Gallaher plat. Simpson argued that the Planning Commission should comply with a 1983 court decision requiring the reversal of the property's subdivision. **Fred Eastridge** [timestamp: 20:00] requested a one-month postponement for the Eastland Parkway Subdivision. Eastridge stated he needed additional time to continue working on securing an access easement to the adjacent property. **Matt Carter** [timestamp: 25:00] requested the withdrawal of the Cave Hill Place Townhomes amendment from consideration. Carter explained that his client was no longer seeking to relocate the access point for the development. **Ben Blyton** [timestamp: 40:00] commented on the Rice, Brent & Hafley Property development, also known as The Human Bean project. Blyton expressed satisfaction with the proposed development plan and praised the notification process that would inform the public of any future changes to the project. The public comments focused primarily on procedural requests for postponements and withdrawals, with only one speaker addressing opposition to a postponement based on legal precedent, and one speaker expressing support for a proposed development. ## Appointments The meeting included several reappointments to key leadership positions. Four individuals were reappointed to their respective roles: • **William Wilson** was reappointed as Chairperson • **Frank Penn** was reappointed as Vice Chairperson • **Carolyn Plumlee** was reappointed as Secretary • **Karen Mundy** was reappointed as Parliamentarian All four appointments involved reappointments of existing officeholders to continue serving in their current leadership capacities. ## Contested Items The primary contested item at this meeting involved the Mary Jane Gallaher Plat Revocation, which centered on a procedural dispute regarding the Planning Commission's authority to revoke a plat based on a 1983 court order. The disagreement focused on whether the Planning Commission should proceed with revoking the plat in question. Two opposing parties presented arguments to the commission: • **Estate's attorney** - Represented the interests of the Mary Jane Gallaher estate and argued against the plat revocation • **Northside Neighborhood Association** - Advocated for the plat revocation to move forward The dispute appeared to stem from differing interpretations of a court order from 1983 and its implications for the current plat status. The nature of the disagreement was primarily procedural, suggesting the parties disagreed on the proper legal process or authority for handling the plat revocation rather than the underlying merits of the case itself. Both sides presented their positions to the Planning Commission, with the estate's legal representation likely arguing that the commission lacked authority or proper grounds for revocation, while the neighborhood association presumably contended that the 1983 court order provided sufficient basis for the commission to act. The extracted data does not indicate the final outcome or resolution of this contested matter, suggesting the commission may have taken the issue under advisement or deferred a decision to a future meeting. ## Lakeview Estates, Units 2B & 2E (AMD) [timestamp: 30:00] The Planning Commission reviewed PLAN 2013-64F, an amendment for Lakeview Estates Units 2B & 2E. The proposal involves subdividing one existing lot into eight separate lots within the development. Jim Duncan served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The amendment represents a modification to a plan that the Planning Commission had originally approved in 2013. The applicant returned to request reapproval of the subdivision plan after the initial approval period. The subdivision would create eight individual lots from what is currently a single parcel within the Lakeview Estates development. This type of amendment typically involves reviewing updated site plans, ensuring compliance with current zoning requirements, and confirming that infrastructure and utilities can adequately serve the increased number of lots. The Planning Commission approved the amendment, allowing the applicant to proceed with the subdivision of the lot into eight separate parcels. This approval enables the development to move forward with the revised lot configuration within Units 2B and 2E of the Lakeview Estates project. The reapproval process ensures that the subdivision plan continues to meet current planning standards and development requirements, even though the original concept was approved several years earlier in 2013. ## Chesapeake Equine (AMD) [timestamp: 30:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00050, an amendment for Chesapeake Equine. Jim Duncan presented the proposal, which seeks to add a picnic shelter to the property and increase the lot coverage by 390 square feet. The amendment represents a relatively minor modification to the existing development plan. The addition of the picnic shelter would provide recreational amenities while the associated increase in lot coverage remains modest at 390 square feet. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this amendment and recommended approval to the full commission. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item. The commission approved the Chesapeake Equine amendment as presented. ## Sunny Slope, Unit 1-A (AMD) [timestamp: 30:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00051, an amendment for Sunny Slope, Unit 1-A. Jim Duncan served as the key speaker presenting the proposed changes to the development plan. The amendment requested several modifications to the existing approved development: • Increase lot coverage by 250 square feet to accommodate a new storage building • Addition of four carports to the site • Revision of the current parking layout • Reflection of the release of the sanitary sewer force main easement Duncan presented the details of how these changes would affect the overall site plan and explained the rationale behind each proposed modification. The storage building addition would provide necessary utility space for the development, while the four new carports would enhance parking convenience for residents. The parking layout revision was designed to optimize traffic flow and accessibility throughout the development. The release of the sanitary sewer force main easement represented an administrative update to reflect current utility arrangements on the property. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission approved the amendment. The approval allows the developer to proceed with the proposed 250 square foot lot coverage increase, construct the four additional carports, implement the revised parking configuration, and formalize the sanitary sewer easement release. This amendment represents a relatively minor adjustment to the existing Sunny Slope, Unit 1-A development plan, focusing primarily on enhanced storage and parking amenities for residents while maintaining compliance with local development standards. ## Rice, Brent & Hafley Property (The Human Bean) (AMD) [timestamp: 40:00] The planning commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00052, an amendment for the Rice, Brent & Hafley Property designated for The Human Bean development. The amendment was proposed to formally denote the redevelopment of the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Cheryl Gallt and Richard Murphy, who presented details about the proposed amendment and redevelopment plans for the site. The item had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended approval of the amendment with specific conditions attached. The committee's recommendation provided the foundation for the planning commission's consideration of the proposal. The amendment represents a formal step in the redevelopment process for the property, which is planned to house The Human Bean, a coffee shop chain. The redevelopment amendment allows for the necessary changes to the property designation to accommodate the new commercial use. Following discussion of the amendment details and review of the Subdivision Committee's recommendations and conditions, the planning commission approved the Rice, Brent & Hafley Property amendment. The approval moves the project forward in the development process, subject to the conditions established by the Subdivision Committee. The approval of PLN-MJDP-18-00052 clears a regulatory hurdle for The Human Bean development, allowing the redevelopment plans to proceed under the amended property designation and established conditions. ## Mary Jane Gallaher Plat Revocation [timestamp: 50:00] The Planning Commission considered the revocation of plat PLAN 78-253F, known as the Mary Jane Gallaher Plat, during their discussion of this agenda item. The primary issue centered on a 1983 court order that reversed the subdivision of the property, creating a legal basis for revoking the original plat approval. Key speakers during the discussion included Tracy Jones, Wayne Collier, and Bruce Simpson, who presented information and participated in the deliberation process. The commission examined the legal implications of the decades-old court ruling and its impact on the current status of the subdivision plat. The 1983 court order effectively nullified the original subdivision approval, making the plat revocation a necessary administrative action to align the official records with the legal reality established by the court. After considering the presented information and legal requirements, the Planning Commission approved the revocation of the Mary Jane Gallaher Plat. This action formally removes the subdivision approval from the official records, bringing the plat status into compliance with the 1983 court order that had previously reversed the subdivision of the property. The approval of this revocation represents the commission's effort to maintain accurate and legally compliant planning records by addressing a longstanding discrepancy between the official plat records and the court-ordered reversal of the subdivision. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of June 14, 2018 minutes - **PLAN 78-253F** — passed (8-0): Deny postponement request for Mary Jane Gallaher plat revocation - **PLN-MJSUB-18-00017** — passed (8-0): Postpone Eastland Parkway Subdivision to August 9, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00047** — withdrawn (8-0): Withdraw Cave Hill Place Townhomes amendment - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve consent agenda with findings on access easement for Lakeview Estates - **PLN-MJDP-18-00052** — passed (8-0): Approve Rice, Brent & Hafley Property (The Human Bean) amendment - **PLAN 78-253F** — passed (8-0): Revoke Mary Jane Gallaher plat - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Elect officers for the commission - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Delegate Secretary's duties to Director of Planning --- ## Full transcript So jaded You think that's where it's at But is that where it's supposed to be? You're getting it all over me X-rated My, my baby blue Yeah, I've been thinking about you My, my baby blue Yeah, you're so jaded And I'm the one that jaded you Hey, don't you jade it? In all its misery It will always be what I love and hate it And maybe take a ride to the other side We're thinking of, we'll slip into the velvet club and be jaded My, my baby blue, yeah I'm thinking about you My, my baby blue, yeah I'm so jaded Baby I'm afraid of you I'm so complicated I put it all up to here But it's all the rage Help me build a mountain From a little pile of clay But she knows what I'm about She can take what I dish out And that's not easy Well, she knows me through and through And she knows just what to do And how to believe me She's a lady Oh, oh, oh She's a lady Talking about the little lady And the lady is mine Yeah, yeah She's a lady Oh, oh, oh, she's a lady Listen to me, people, she's a lady Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, she's a lady Oh, oh, oh, she's a lady Talking about the little lady Cigarette Cigarette Cigarette I can't get rid of that little lady Cigarette I was petrified. Kept thinking I could never live without you by my side. But then I spent so many nights thinking how you did me wrong. And I grew strong. And I learned how to get along. And so you're back from outer space. I just walked in to find you here with that sad look upon your face. I should have changed that stupid lock I should have made you leave your key If I'd have known for just one second You'd be back to bother me Oh, now go Walk out the door Just turn around now Cause you're not welcome anymore Weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye? You think I'd crumble? You think I'd lay down and die? Oh, no, not I I will survive Oh, as long as I know how to love I know I'll be alive I've got all my life to live I've got all my love to give I'll survive I will survive Hey, hey It took all the steps I had not to fall apart I've tried hard to mend the pieces of my broken heart And I've been oh so many nights just feeling sorry for myself I used to cry, but now I hold my head up high. And you see me, somebody new. I'm not that change-up little person still in love with you. And so you felt like dropping in and just expecting to be free. Now I'm saving all my loving for someone who's loving me. Lord, now go, walk out the door. Just turn around now, because you're not welcome anymore. Oh, weren't you the one who tried to break me with the vibe? You think I'd crumble? You think I'd lay down and die? Oh, you're not, I, I will survive. Oh, as long as I know how to love, I know I've been alive. I've got all my life to live. I've got all my love to give. I'll survive. I will survive. Oh. Go on now, go Walk out the door Just turn around now You're not welcome anymore Weren't you the one who tried to break me with the fire You think I'd crumble You think I'd lay down and die Oh no, not I I will survive Oh, as long as I know how to love I know I'll be right I've got all my life to live I've got all my love to give, but I'll divide. I will divide. I will divide. From a distance the world looks blue and green And the snow-capped mountains white From a distance the ocean meets the stream And the eagle takes to flight From a distance there is harmony And it echoes through the land It's the voice of hope It's the voice of peace It's the voice of every man From a distance we all have enough And no one is in need And there are no guns, no bounds and no disease No hungry mouths to feed From a distance we are instruments Marching in a common land Playing songs of hope Playing songs of peace They're the songs of every man God is watching us God is watching us God is watching us From a distance From a distance you look like my friend Even though we are at war From a distance I just cannot comprehend What all this fighting is for From a distance there is harmony And it echoes through the line And it's the hope of those It's the love of those Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Music County Planning Commission July the 12th, 2018 to order. I'd like to thank those of you in the audience for being with us. I'd like to thank the staff that's here and also thank our commission members. As you note, there is a new setup today and we're all kind of getting used to looking one way and then the other. And so we'll be able to adjust to that later on, I'm sure. Approval of the minutes is first thing, June the 14th. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. approval of June 14 2018 minutes. Okay it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve the minutes of June 14 2018. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing that would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries thank you. Postponements and our withdrawals yes my name is Wayne Collier I'm here on behalf of the Kisling estate that's item number four plan 78 excuse me 253 F this is an unusual matter I don't know whether it's come up before that I can recall but my client has only learned recently of the events that surround the reason for it being on the docket today and we've tried to get all the records together but as you might expect an action that was filed back in 1979 we haven't had a chance to get to archives we have sent the city and they've they've been very helpful getting documents to us so that we can look to see what the history has been with respect to the property but we just haven't had a there's there may be people we need to talk to and it just haven't had time to look at it uh don't even know what all the issues legal issues are that go with that once you get the facts set up and once that's done honestly the my client would like to then step back and assess the situation to see if there's a way to resolve it because of its unusual nature and complexity and that if that can happen I think it'd be beneficial to everyone in the interim I know that permits can't be issued now anyway and things of that nature so I don't know that it's going to change the status quo any to do that so how much time are you asking or requesting I think it would take I thought about I knew you'd ask that probably at least 30 days because once we do the review my my guess is that we'll take might have to consult with the city if we've got a proposal to make also with the others who are interested in it to see what can be done and that might take 10 days to two weeks to hammer something out if it's possible okay so i was thinking like mid to late august given the vacation season i know i can't speak for everybody in this room but i'll be out of town two weeks during that period so bottom line one month yeah okay anyone I will say I'm out of town through August 12th or 13th I think okay thank you anyone like to speak to this postponement okay mr. Simpson afternoon mr. chairman members of the Commission I'm Bruce Simpson I'm here on behalf of Northside Neighborhood Association Inc., which was one of the parties that filed suit in 1979, which contested a prior decision of this body at that time on subdividing 444 West Third Street. That matter was subsequently litigated to a final decision before the Fayette Circuit Court, and in 1983, Fayette Circuit Court decided that the Planning Commission had aired and reversed the Planning Commission's decision. At this point, it really doesn't matter how much research is done and what all happened from 79 and even till today. The question before you, which has been before this body since January of 1983, is compliance with a 1983 court decision which reversed your predecessor's decision on subdividing the property, which is the issue in controversy, in 1979. For some reason, though everybody received notice in the government that Judge Meade had reversed the Planning Commission, no action was taken by the Planning Commission to undo its erroneous decision as determined by the court. So at this point, in my judgment, you simply need to take the appropriate action through the records of the Fayette County Clerk's Office to denote that this is an invalid plat per the provisions of a lawful court order, which was not appealed by the owner of 444 West 3rd at the time. And this matter has been decided. You know, waiting another 30 days to gather records is not going to contravene a court order which has been in effect for 35 years, which you all are required to comply with. So delaying it any further after it's been delayed this long is not helpful. It needs to be decided. the applicant has two alternatives to file a new subdivision plan and come before this body to seek approval of what they want to do if they want to or they can go back to the Fayette Circuit Court and litigate the question of the effectiveness of the application of the decision but there is absolutely no reason to delay your all's decision in complying with the order of the court I think your law department will agree with that. And so delay is just adding another unjustifiable time to noncompliance with an order that's been directed toward this body since 1983. So we oppose any postponement of this matter. It's long past right for you all to act in compliance with the law. Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this postponement? If not, I'll turn it back to our commission, and perhaps, Tracy, do you have anything to add to that? We talked with you all last week in committees about this, and there is a court order from 1983 that it appears from all the records that we've been able to find reversed the decision of the Planning Commission four years earlier in 1979, which subdivided this property. We don't know what happened after that order was issued because other than it was 35 years ago and possibly the process or procedures were different. But the plat was recorded subdividing the property. So we are trying to figure out the best method to rectify that situation. And in our mind, it was to revoke the plat. However, that being said, because it is an estate and there's some questions that the estate, who is the property owner has they ask if they could get more time to just go through the things and get more familiar with everything that happened have a better understanding of what the Commission did at that time I can't tell you for sure that it would change anything or change our recommendation but we would we told them they come down here and ask you all today and we're not gonna tell you one way or another if if you should or shouldn't postpone it be your decision to make that call. Okay, thank you. Any questions from the panel, commission members? Any questions for the applicant? Not the applicant, but the people who make the proposal for the postponement, or for Mr. Simpson who opposes it? If not, then I will close that part of it, bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, considering the time element in all, I move we do not postpone that we do hear the case today. Okay. Do I have a second on that? I'll second it just for Mr. Case. Okay. It has been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Mr. Frank Penn that we move forward with this particular hearing today. No. You have a motion. Yes, and you're supporting the motion to continue to move forward with the hearing today. Any questions on that? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the motion is 7-1 in favor of moving forward. We'll move forward with that particular hearing today. any other uh post yes sir mr chairman members of the planning commission i'm fred eastridge with ecsi on page two of your agenda item number two under preliminary subdivision plans plan mjsub dash 18 dash 00017 eastland parkway subdivision track 1c block b lot 2 i'd like to ask for postponement till next month's planning commission meeting The reason? We're working on the access with the adjacent lot, sir. Okay, and that's one month postpostal? Yes, sir. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, then we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Holland. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of Plan MJSUB 18-17 Eastland Parkway Subdivision until August 9, 2018. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we postpone PLNMJSUV18-17 Eastern Park Subdivision Track 1C Block B Lot 2 until August 9, 2018. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you'd turn in the agenda to page 2, bottom of the page, PLN MJDP 18-47 Cave Hill Place Townhomes, we would like to withdraw this application. and the reason is originally we were seeking to move one of our access points and we're no longer trying to do that. So we need to withdraw the application. Okay. In this particular case with the withdrawal, we don't need any audience assignments, assessments. What about the commission? Do you have any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion from the commission to withdraw. Mr. Chair, I move for withdrawal of PLN-MJDP 1847. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we withdraw PLN-MJDP 18-47, Cave Hill Place, townhouse, townhomes. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay, what about the consent agenda? Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff is happy to report that the remaining items on your agenda, subdivision items and development plans are eligible and on the consent agenda. Direct your attention to page one. Item A, this is a final record plat, Lakeview Estates, Units 2B and 2E amended. This is a re-approval item that was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. Staff would note that there is a finding on the access easement associated with this plan. The next item on your consent agenda is on page three. It is item B. This is a major development plan, 18-50 Chesapeake Equine amended. This is for property located at 1024 Greendale Road. And it was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. Continuing on page 3, item C. We have a major development plan, 18-51, Sunny Slope, Unit 1A, amended. This is for property located at 3765 Winthrop Drive. And the final item on your consent agenda is also on page 3, item D. This is a major development plan, 18-52, for Rice, Brent, and Halfley property amended. And this is property located at 1946 Harrodsburg Road. And again, recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. At this time, we would ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to have one of these items removed and heard before the planning commission today, and of course, if any member of the planning commission would like to have an item removed. Which one, sir? Yes, sir, please come forward and tell us which one it is that you'd like to have a hearing on. Well, I- Give us your name please. I'm sorry. Name and address. Ben Blyton. Address. 625 Blue Ash Drive. Okay. So I'm right next to this property in item D. I called a couple weeks ago trying to- Well, you don't have to worry about it. You need to ask, tell us right now, which one you'd like to hear. We'll hear from you a little bit later. Okay, D, yeah, thank you. I wasn't sure exactly- Okay, that's item D? Yeah. Okay. That's all for right now. We've already pulled it, and we'll be ready to hear that a little bit later. Anyone else like to hear anything on these particular consent agenda items? On the commission? If not, then what we'll do is we'll take a motion to do the consent agenda with the removal of item D on page 3. Ms. Monday. So moved. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the consent agenda with the exception of item D, PLN, MJ, DP 18-52, Rice, Brent, and Halfley property due to a constituent asking for it to be pulled. Okay. Could I also add to your motion for findings on the first one? Findings on the access easement. Yeah, in the findings. Okay. Ms. Mundy moves. Mr. Bell seconds that we approve the consent agenda as presented with the exception of item D on page 3, and that is the Rice, Brent, and Halfley property due to a constituent in the audience making that recommendation. We also would like to include findings on the access easement as it relates to plan 2013-64-F Lakeview Estates. That's the motion that's been seconded by Mr. Bell. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote on the consent agenda as presented? Okay. Okay, thank you. So we will start with, I guess, D. While the committee is setting up, while the staff is setting up, and without objection from my constituents, if you turn to page four, performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Mr. Berkley? I'm going to move for approval of release of call bonds. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we have the release of call of bonds. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when that comes up on the screen? Well. We're going to have to get it clear on the screen. It's not going to come up yet. Okay, we'll do it viva Boca. All those in favor, raise your hand. Okay, as motion carries, we'll move right on. Okay, now we're ready to move back to item D on page three. We've already voted on the other one, by the way. It's a unanimous vote, so we're taking care of that. Why you are getting the electronics together we did it the old fashioned way. It's the release of collar bonds, unanimous approval. Okay, Ms. Galt. Okay, this is a little different. I guess I get to be the first person to try this out on this area. We're going to go to item D on page three, MGDP 1852 Rice Brenton Halfley property. The human being amended. I was waiting for her to, oh, there it is. Ms. Gallagher, would you please speak into that microphone? I'm sorry, I'm trying to. I don't have a step stool back here. Well, I'm a little old, so you got to talk to me. Yes, sir. All right, this property is located on Harrodsburg Road, right here. Oh, thank you. This property is located on Harrodsburg Road. We have the McDonald's here on the corner. This is Lane Allen Road here. Harrodsburg Road. Turflam Mall is up over on the other side. They brought in, this is the parking lot that was adjacent to the McDonald's. When they came back in and redid the McDonald's, they put in a Taco Bell. So this is the remaining portion of what was left for the parking lot, and they've come in to put in what is called the human being. The plan was reviewed. We have the first nine conditions are our typical sign-offs from different governmental agencies. Then we have a couple cleanup conditions. Delete the 100-foot residential setback, which was really for the McDonald's building. Addition of a steep slope note. Replace a tree canopy on the plan face. clarify applicable restrictive notes to the site. This was part of when the McDonald's was here. There was a lot of information between the properties that lived behind in the McDonald's and they were concerned about the fencing and just the use of the property. And then to correct note number seven on the plan. With this, the subdivision committee had reviewed it and they had recommended approval on the property. Any questions for Ms. Gallup? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the applicant on here. I represent Kosh Hira, who will be operating this restaurant on the property. And with us today is Eric Merlino from the Roberts Group, which is designing this. And I did, in the last couple minutes, I did have a chance to talk to Mr. Blyton briefly, who is the person who asked that this be taken off the consent agenda. And this is the former McDonald's parking lot. The area where the McDonald's building was is now occupied by a Taco Bell. And this is the parking lot, which was to the north on the town side of the McDonald's. And this, under the development plan, which was approved many years ago when the zone change was approved for McDonald's, mcdonald's there was a note put on the development plan that in the event of any amendment to the development plan the same notification would be sent to the neighbors as required for a zone change so when this was filed that note was filed was followed and we did send out notification of this development plan to all the surrounding owners within 500 feet which is 94 properties we sent out letters to 94 properties informing them of the amendment to the development plan i think otherwise this would be a fairly routine item because we meet all setbacks lot coverages all that sort of thing on this development plan now when those letters went out mr hera did receive a few phone calls from neighbors and i think without exception all the phone calls related to what kind of food is going to be served here and especially an objection to fried foods and luckily we are a coffee shop here it's going to be called the human bean coffee shop and they do serve some food pastries and that sort of thing like you'd get in a in a coffee shop so So that's what we're doing here. And I told Mr. Blyton that we would be agreeable. He wanted to make sure that if there is another change to this, that the neighbors be notified once again. And I told him that we would agree to have put that on the development plan. And, in fact, we already have it on the development plan. it's under note five which says developer will provide notice to surrounding property owners as would be required for a proposed zoning map amendment with regard to any proposed amendments to this development plan for the subject property so if anybody came in here wanted to do any change to it that we'd have to notify the surrounding neighbors again on this but if there's any other issues about particular development plan things, I'll want to tell you about those, but I don't think there are. So I'll sit down at this point. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Sir, are you happy with this? I mean, you can come and speak to it now. We'd like to get you on record either one way or the other. Yes, sir. I'm a happy camper. Give us your name and address again, please. been light and 625 blue ash tribe okay our family's been at that location for about 100 years we were sort of the original family right there and everything grew from there so we have a special pride in that location as we do in lexington and i don't want this to be another fourth of july sort of escapade. We've already had some wonderful communication. I'm happy with the results and I think we got what we need to see some way to be notified and I think it's great that you all have a procedure now that seems to be pretty effective towards notifying all of the neighbors. So I'm finished and I want to I congratulate you all on doing a good job. Well, it's not over yet, sir, but that's okay. I can count on you, though. That's got any questions for me? No, you're okay. We just wanted to make sure that you were on record because you had indicated you wanted this one pulled. But now you're happy. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this particular plan? I guess that's the question I have. Anyone on the commission? Mr. Chairman, just for you all's information, The notification requirement is a development plan note, and Taco Bell was a minor development plan. It did not come before this body, and yet staff required that notification to be sent. So I want you all to rest assured that that notification requirement is not going away, and regardless of the scope of any amendment, the neighbors will be notified. Okay, thank you. We can all sleep better with that knowing that Mr. Martin. Appreciate that. Any other discussion from the commission members? If not, then we're ready for a motion on this particular agenda item. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDB 18-52. Rice, Brent, and Halfley Property, the human being, with the 14 noted conditions. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve PLNMJDP 18-52, Rice, Brent, and Halfley Property, the human being, with the 14 conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we're over to the last page, page 4. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. We are on page 4 under Platt revocation. This is for Plan 78-253F, Mary Jane Gallagher property. This is property that is located between West 2nd and 3rd Streets. It's known as 451 West 2nd Street. As you all are aware, revocations are rare. Since I've been back with the Planning Commission, I believe we've had two revocations come before you. Staff is not going to delve into any particulars about this other than we'd like to orient you to where these properties are located and to the configurations of the property. See if I've got this working. The laser and I do not get along. Thank you. I couldn't be a Jedi Knight, apparently. That's not the only reason. Here we have 3rd Street and the parent track of the property. And you can see the large square in the back. This was the piece that was subdivided by the plat in 1979, and that's what that dash line represents. This was the subdivision into these two lots. Previously, it was shaped like the big flag that you see. If you revoke the plat, that will be the shape of the property once again, the configuration. In orange, off of West Second Street, We have a lot, and this lot had an access easement established on it to access this area. And that was how access was provided to this property on the 1979 plat. It did not meet the requirements of frontage and access at that time, and there was a waiver associated with this plat action. so again we just wanted you to see this is the lot that has an access easement on it this is the back piece of the parent track that was subdivided by the 1979 track or a plat and again this is the piece that provides the as frontage on West 3rd Street and again staff doesn't want to speak to any of the issues you already heard some of those issues during your postponement conversation. We just wanted to orient you to the property and to its location. And I'm sure that our law department will be able to address any further questions you may have for staff. Okay. Before we get to, first of all, we have no applicant per se in this, just people who might be concerned about the issues. But Ms. Jones, do you have anything else that you'd like to add to what you've already added? Or do you all have any questions that you want to direct toward Ms. Jones? Let's just get Ms. Jones on record here. I think I don't have a lot to add. The only thing is that the reason we brought it to you in this fashion is because obviously this is an unusual circumstance, and we tried to figure out what would be the best way to go back and correct what appears to be a 35-year-old oversight because the plat and the PBA and other things are relying on the plat that got recorded while the litigation was still pending. Just by way of information, I don't know if this will be helpful or not, but in the judge's order that was issued, he did say that he was reversing the action of the planning commission that subdivided the property. So that's, from our perspective, that's what we're trying to accomplish in the records. You can ask me why it wasn't addressed 35 years ago, but I can't answer that because I don't know. We've looked through the records, and all we can tell you is that the plat is still there in the county clerk's office as if it was subdivided. So there may have been a different process back then. I'm really not sure, but that's where this whole process came from. And while it is a little unusual, it was the best alternative that we could determine after we looked at the court's opinion and looked at our records. Mr. Penn has a question for you. Can you tell us from your research what the judge found that didn't adhere to the words? Why did he turn it down? Is it because it was too narrow? Well, there was multiple things that were going on with this piece of property when the subdivision came through. The first was obviously a plat would subdivide the parcel into two. As you can see from looking at that, when that happened, the second parcel, the square piece in the back, would have no access to a roadway. And as you all know, and as best we can determine, that hasn't changed over the years, that you can't subdivide and create a landlocked parcel that has no access to it. And this is another one, I can only tell you what happened. I can't explain why. as part of that plat there was an easement granted not on the third street parent track but from the or what's in orange up there on the second street track which is not which is a different owner so but in addition that access easement didn't meet the twenty-foot wide access requirement at the time So when they were looking at that subdivision, they also required, and they called it a variance then. You might call it a waiver now. But at any rate, what was granted was a variance from 20 feet to 12 feet for an access easement, not from 3rd Street, but from 2nd Street. So the property would no longer be landlocked, and it was subdivided. So when the judge ruled, he had a problem with a couple of things. He had a problem with the fact it was subdivided, and he had a problem with the fact that the Planning Commission granted a variance on the access to a smaller dimension, as he thought at the time that was the Board of Adjustment's responsibility. And it may very well have been. But as you know now, you all, in the case of a zone change, which this was not, are allowed to grant variances and conditional use permits that are in tandem with a zone change. This wasn't a zone change. So those seem to be the two main reasons why he didn't believe that this planning commission had enough substantial evidence to do what they did, and he reversed it. um that's all he said is he reverses it i mean he he wrote an opinion but in terms of i'm reversing it i'm sending it back to the planning commission to do xyz he didn't say that in the order so at that point i don't know what happened anyone else on the commission have any questions ms jones okay uh because there's no applicant officially here if people we will open it up a little bit for people to make comments on it. Does anyone want to make a comment on this? Okay, then we'll allow you to do so now as a part of the citizens' portion of this. Let me caution you about one thing, and that is the legal issues. This commission is not prepared to deal with that. I think you can understand why. And the council has already advised us that, quite frankly, according to KRS statutes, as to what our duties are here today related to that. Now, does that mean that it has to stop here? Well, obviously you all could do whatever you need to do, but if you're going to make legal arguments, you either have to make those with Ms. Jones or you have to make them with the court situation. With that said, we are privileged and pleased to have you to make a few comments if you'd like to do so. Yes, because according to our format and what have you, for the most part, it goes to the citizens who are for it. I didn't see any, didn't think anybody was here for it, but anyone objects to it, that's you. We're objecting. So, let's see here. There we go. I learned something. We have, because I told you it was somewhat record-intensive, and as the staff, as Ms. Jones has already told you, the staff has made a diligent effort. Excuse me, give us your name and address again. Oh, I'll go back. Wayne Collier, 301 East Main. I'm here on behalf of the Kisling Estate, the owner of the property. Okay, are you an attorney? Yes, I am. Okay. But you're here primarily as a member of the Neighborhood Association? No, I'm here for the landowner whose property was subdivided. Gotcha. That's my clarification. Thank you. I mean, if you want to change the order, I understand. That's okay. All right. But what we've done, just for the record, is we brought some documents to put in the record. We're not going to ask everybody to go through them today. I'm sure Ms. Jones has looked at probably every one of them. And you perhaps have seen some of them. But the issue, and I understand not getting too deep into the weeds, but this is a little bit illegally, legally but some things do need to be said because the question may not be as much about what happened because i understand you're not a court you know i would make my arguments differently but the principal question that seems to be today is can the planning commission act and if so how can it act in what manner could it act because if the planning commission isn't invested with the authority it goes right to the jurisdiction of url's ability to do something and that's always a legal question i mean even though it affects how you act and if you would let me pass a few things out and then i can streamline it i don't mean to go i won't go through all of them but that way i can make sure these things are in the record and i will say that if it's all right with the commission i was going to ask my the executor of the state to come forward but instead i'm just going to have her put an affidavit into the record and that'll be fine shorten things up a bit so if you'll give me if i can be excused for a minute i'll pass it i've got copies for all of you if you want them that's up to you we'll pass them out i was just giving it to ms jones if you've already had these well they're organized i'm sure i've seen them but probably not in the same manner you have okay well if you're all interested are we anticipated on reading that today no oh i have not uh how many do you want well i'm gonna get enough here for them You need these two. Bruce, do you want one? Take care. Ten more trees. Okay. How many more do you need, do you think? Well, we can share. Who should I give the original affidavit to? Clerk? Right. Also, does this come with an abstract? We have written letters that are in there, and I think Ms. Jones has those. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I may. Mr. Collier? Yes, sir. Would you make sure that the recording secretary has a copy of this, please? Thank you. Sure can. Now we did, for your convenience, there are some plats and the drawing is not exactly entirely accurate. I don't know that it makes a terrible amount of difference, but we do have copies of the plat that's under discussion. I think it might be helpful if you did have it. We have six copies. I need one of them. There is a smaller copy in the volume, but it's small. So this is a little bigger. Okay. It's also up on the screen, I see. One of the things of interest in that, in terms of the drawing, this is reversed, obviously, in terms of orientation from what you saw earlier, but I think you can just flip it and see what it is. the two tracts that were subdivided are those which are bolded up at the top of the plat that's on the screen the access easement is over the other tract which is to the southwest of the tract that's in the middle of the block the estate also owns another parcel that is rectangular and fits in behind the west third street tract it was actually combined on drawing that you had but there are actually three parcels there it wasn't involved in in this plat but they do own it so if that helps i i think it's important to understand the orientation before we get going so if you've got any questions about that i'd be happy to answer it okay the the the agenda shows that the basis that has been chosen to revoke this plat is under krs 100 285 and i've included a copy of that statute in there in case you want to look at it it's critical though what it says because it's really narrow in terms of the scope as to who can have a plat revoked and under what circumstances so there are two criteria that have to be met otherwise it suggests at the end that the remedy is to not file an action in circuit court well we're not the circuit court so what how does it relate to you number one it says 100 285 one upon application of all persons owning land comprising a subdivision so the people or entities that can make an application that can make the decision you you might have to prove it to revoke a plat or the owners well the owners who i represent do not want the plat revoked and it says that upon their application the planning commission may revoke the approval of a subdivision plat including all dedications of public facilities easements and right the rights of white the things that would normally be on a plat well that's the first hurdle do you have a situation here today where the owners have come forward to ask you to revoke this plat no it's quite the opposite there's a second corollary to this because let's face it if if you have a plat that has been recorded especially here that plat has been on record 39 years there have been transactions and things of that nature the records in there indicate that my client recently purchased interest in this property for 325 000 sign a note file the mortgage mortgagee doesn't even know about this proceeding yet they think they've got a mortgage on this property all right so that's that brings us to question two under the statute because the statute says all right let's say you have a situation where the owners have brought it forward to you and have asked you to revoke the plat then the commission asks them and what's required under number two they it says before any plant can be revoked all owners shall as part of their application for revocation state under oath that no person has purchased a lot shown on the plat well that that's just not true in this situation in fact my client is the one that's purchase the interest you know and that that occurred in 2018 the deeds and everything are all in there the mortgages they're all in your packet that we've given to you to establish that that is so that you wouldn't revoke a plat and have people who've bought lots say in a subdivision in reliance there's a plat there i bought a lot and then you go pull the rug from under them and say oh no there's no plat what are those people going to do so this the legislature in its wisdom said that only owners can ask and they can only get your approval if they can ensure that nobody else has bought any of the lots in other words we subdivided it it's a mistake we want to undo it nobody's bought an interest in it no one will be harmed you may revoke it it goes on to say in In number four of that, it says the remedy provided in this section is in addition to all other remedies provided by law and shall not impair the right of the commission, that's you, or any interested party from filing an action in circuit court for such relief as may be appropriate. That way all those who have an interest, such as the mortgagee in the property somehow, or people who've bought lots, can be brought before the court. and if there's a way to fix it, if it can be revoked or there's some other remedy, the circuit court has jurisdiction of that. Therefore, any other means, I guess that's another way of saying if you're going to revoke a plat, except for the two criteria that I just read to you, the only body that has jurisdiction to do that is the circuit court. So what's being asked today? people who are not the owners are asking this body to revoke a plat where there have been property transfers it doesn't meet the criteria it doesn't mean it can't it couldn't be done i suppose but it goes directly to what you can do and if you couldn't do it and went up on appeal then it would be sent it would be reversed and then people would have to file an action circuit court i suppose if that was their wish. Whether the commission wishes to file an action in a certain court, I don't know. I don't speak for you. I don't represent you. I don't know what Northside wishes to do. Okay. Whatever. So that's the principal argument, but there's a corollary to that, and it has to do with the second point. What about the rights of these people who've come along since the Platt has been there? And let's face it, I've never heard of a Platt that's been on record 39 years that's getting revoked. I mean, it's just, it's really abnormal. And that's why number two's in. There's also another statute that dovetails with this and relates directly, there's even a case on it that relates directly to what happened in this situation. This is KRS 382-440, sub one. And what this has to do with, it has to do with notice that's given. Whenever you file an action in circuit court that affects rights in real estate, parties that do that can file what's called a list pendants. That's a Latin term, which is kind of like a legal notice. Let's make it simple. I didn't know what that was until I went to law school. Never heard of it. But what that does then, if I come along and that list pendants is there and I'm interested in buying one of the tracks in the subdivision, I look at it and say, oh, there's an action going on that could affect the rights of these parties. In this property, I've got to be careful. I've got to go look at the action. Maybe the action is not final yet. Maybe I can't buy it yet, right? The interesting thing about this statute is it provides a remedy to what happens if you don't file it. And what it says, and it starts off with a litany. I'm not going to read all of it. but any kind of action by anybody in any court for any reason, it says if they don't file this list pendants, then whatever happens in that action shall not in any manner affect the right, title, or interest of any subsequent purchaser. So if you decide to revoke the plat, this statute says you can't act to affect the rights of a subsequent purchaser who I represent. And so these two statutes kind of work together. They're consistent because they say the owners can't revoke if they've already sold some lots, right? Or someone who's filed an action can't do the same thing if they didn't do it. Turns out, I mean, coincidence of coincidences, there was a reported decision in 1980 while this very action was, well, underway. I would, thank you for that. You're getting a little bit into the weeds for us. I know, but this. I was trying to key in on the two things that you started off with. Okay. That is why we as a commission should not consider this ministerial, and we'll get back to our attorney a little bit later on that. Okay, well, short version. Okay. Short version is I think that there's no statutory basis for the commission to act. I understand this, what the facts are. unless you file an action circuit court, which was that was option four under that 285. And then there's no notice, you know, there have been subsequent conveyances, and there's a decision that said to practitioners, like if you had a zoning appeal, this is what the court of appeals said, practitioners in this area of the law should take heed. Those representing protesters of zoning changes can more thoroughly protect their client's interest by filing notices of list pendants. They didn't file one, which means they can't interfere with their rights now. And what happened, I did, I might have gotten, I got out of law school in 1980, so I actually was filed while I was still there. Bottom line is, my clients ran title searches. They tried to find out what was there. There was a quiet title action that they settled in 2008, January of this year. and then lo and behold in June of this year they find out about an action which no one filed the list pendants for and there's no record anywhere all there is is a a plat on the record that if you look at it satisfies every criteria signed off by everybody it complies and all that so those are the those are the primary things now the I guess the final thing you might would be question i would think the commission would ask is all right maybe let's say you skip all those and you can't there is a statute that would authorize you to revoke all right if the reason that you're being asked to revoke is because of a 1983 opinion in an appeal of a zoning matter you would also have to act is it still valid can it still be enforced in other words it has to give you the ability to enforce you have to have something to enforce right so is that enforceable you know there's a lot of question about that i don't think it is 35 years have passed secondly the petitioners for whatever reason did not ask judge me circuit court circuit judge in that action to revoke the plat they could have obviously because it's tight it's tied in with the same things that were before the commission right i mean it's a fait accompli once you approve a plat it's going to get recorded by law and you do that so did they ask for that had they done that it would take care of itself at that time and no and my client wouldn't have come along and paid three hundred twenty five thousand dollars for it but they didn't again not my client's fault under this other statute they they should they cannot be harmed by that action and it's a little more there are some other complications i'm not going to get into it but i think the thing is that i i'm requesting it can do the commission do is you know ask itself the question do we have the right to do it have all the criteria been satisfied and in so doing will we accomplish only the narrow what we're trying to do is revoke a plat because that's really what you all do you approve plats you you can't it's possible to revoke it are you going to will it have other effects beyond simple revocation in this case because of the passage of time it will and 100 285 says don't revoke it if transfers have been made to avoid that very problem because what you do, you're buying a lawsuit in a way. Whoever's affected by that decision, let's say it was a subdivision with 50 units of houses in it, you'd have all those people saying, where's my boundary? Do I have a good title to my property? So in a nutshell, that's the point. I know that you're not a court, but unfortunately all the issues are legal. You know, it's a tough one. It's unusual. And what we request is that if someone wants to do something and cause all the effects that a revocation would occur, the proper remedy is that the petitioners who originally filed it, they can go back to circuit court, they can ask the judge to do it, and they can carry the ball rather than trying to get the commission to do things that will have effects beyond simple plat revocation. And that seems to be, if they've got it, they can do it. We can't stop them from file a suit at a certain court. But that would be the logical and proper vehicle. Okay. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. In fact, the matter is, I'm sitting here as I was listening to you talk. If only I could turn back the time and ask the judge, why didn't you tell the commission what to do? And apparently they didn't do that, and I hear what your argument is related to it. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to his position? Okay. Ma'am, come on up if you'd like. Or is anyone else, oh, I thought somebody else wanted to. If not, then I'll give Mr. Bruce Simpson a little time to talk. Again, Mr. Simpson, the same admonition to you. Please don't take us into the weeds because none of us are lawyers. And I have a feeling this is going to be adjudicated somewhere else anyhow. So just tell us why you think we ought to hear it as a commission, why this is not classified as ministerial. And then after you get through, we're going to let our lawyer tell us the truth. I'm sorry. Actually, that's a very good point, Mr. Chairman. Because one thing this proceeding today is not about is which lawyers among Mr. Collier and myself, in terms of our advice and our argument, you should follow. Because you have a lawyer. Excuse me, did you give us your name and title for the record? I am Bruce Simpson. I am here on behalf of the Northside Neighborhood Association. Several of whom are here today, and I asked them to stand just so you notice that you all know that their folks are here about this important matter. Thank you. As I said, the arguments that Wayne has made belong in the circuit court. You all have no jurisdiction to decide these legal issues. and Tracy has properly advised you that their recommendation is to comply with this court's order of 1983 so there's really not any need even have a hearing the other provision issue that Wayne brought up the statute KRS 100.285 That's not before this body today. What's before this body today is a decision by circuit court after an appeal was taken, after a hearing was held, that the Planning Commission approved this subdivision. And after that hearing, an appeal was taken, and the court reversed it. They have the power, pursuant to the appeal statute, to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. They don't need to go, we don't need to go to KRS 100-285 because this matter has already been heard and it's been set aside as void. All that's required at this point is for you all to comply with this order, which for some reason hasn't been done for 35 years. But you have a valid court order. It was a court order that was not appealed to the Court of Appeals. It's presumed to be valid unless it's set aside. Now, Mr. Collier can try to set aside the provisions of it or the application of it in circuit court. That is his right. But you ought to under affirmative obligation from a valid court decision to comply with the decision. This is, it's not ministerial. It is an obligation. The court could order you to comply, issue sanctions for noncompliance. So, I'm not going to go in through and respond to all of the legal arguments that Wayne raised because they're really inappropriate. They're appropriate if he wants to challenge this in circuit court. He wants us, despite the fact that there's a valley court order, which was never appealed, to have to go to court and require you all to comply with an order that you're supposed to comply with before we filed the appeal, or filed the suit? It makes no sense. You know, the truth of the matter is, after the Planning Commission in 1979 approved the subdivision that we're talking about, Northside filed an appeal in Circuit Court in February of 1979. The next month, in March of 1979, the owner of the property, despite the fact that she knew there was a valid appeal pending, went and had the plat recorded anyway. She knew that there was a risk that plat could be set aside and be void, and she took the risk of doing that. Now, it should have been corrected. It wasn't. All the issues that Wayne is talking about in terms of the effect on his client, The reality is this property has been in the same family, it's been advertised in terms of their listing for 60 years. That was given to Transylvania and the family that's owned it or controlled it for 60 years bought it back. That was their decision. But certainly the original owner knew about the decision vacating this body's opinion and it's been in the same family. And they're free to come back and try to subdivide it again. No one's stopping them from that attempt. And they're free to go to court. But all these arguments and cases that are cited, you don't have any authority to interpret those, decide those. Your obligation is, what does the law at this point require of us? And it's unmistakably clear that the law says this plan has been void since 1983. and you all need to effectuate the provisions of that order and that is what Tracy Jones has advised you to do and that's what we want you to do mr. Collier is free to go to court and challenge that will respond as the appropriate forum today is not the appropriate forum for you all to decide the legal issues that mr. Collier has raised and we ask you simply to comply with the order have the County Clerk in an appropriate note on this plat indicating it's void and without effect thank you thank you uh the uh i'm gonna give our staff the last comment on it and that's ms jones you have any have you heard anything that would take change your mind or cause you any pause um well our recommendation would would still be the same in order for you all to comply with the order and i was looking for it earlier i was trying to quote it word for word to you all but i and i couldn't put my hands on it but i found it and the last sentence in the order from 1983 is the action of the commission in subdividing this property is reversed so that's the order that we have and and it has not been appealed and it has not been altered um you know this is a really unusual circumstance um and it seems to you know the The planning commission is the one that granted the subdivision, so therefore it seems to us that once the court became involved and issued an opinion, that sort of gave us a different directive in terms of what you can do, and for whatever reason, that reversal did not get documented appropriately. So I can try to answer any questions if you have those, but that's notwithstanding some of the other things you've heard, that's still where we are. Okay, thank you. Any questions from Mr. Brewer? So Tracy, I'm not an attorney and don't play one on TV. I'm still not clear as to what you want us to do. Is the order not there? We have a court order. No, we have the court order. What is the Planning Commission's role here? What we believe you're all's role is, is to comply with that order because it was never complied with. So what do we do to comply? And what we're telling you, our best understanding under the law in KRS 100 would be that you would revoke a plat. And you wouldn't be revoking it under an application provision. there is a statute to revoke it, KRS 100-285, but you would be revoking it because of the order. So it would be separate or be different than how you would usually handle a Platt revocation. And you have had some in the past that you recently, not very many, but that you may recall that were handled differently, but they didn't have court orders involved. Okay, Mrs. Penn. I guess I want to make an observation because I don't expect to get an answer from this and maybe I shouldn't ask it, but I don't understand how you purchase a piece of property that doesn't have an access easement. And so I guess what I'm asking is how does a third party buy a piece of property when the access easement has been revoked? How do they get title to that property? because we clearly don't grant property that doesn't have access easement. Does that make any sense? Are you asking in the context of the statements that were made about that the property has been transferred in the past or going forward in the future? Going forward, if the heirs purchased a piece of property for whatever reason, How did they get title for that property when the access season has been revoked? Well, it hasn't been revoked. Well, and that's part of the complexity of this. It has been reversed, the decision that granted it, by the courts. The problem that we have, and that's what we're trying to deal with today, is that that order was never effectuated on the ground in the court in the clerk's office so the plat is still the plat you see even though the court order says that's been reversed okay thank you mr berkeley as i understand this the easement that is shown on this plat that is what was ruled that it was not appropriate or not a legal access easement. Well, yes, but I wish I could explain to you right now a judge's thought process in issuing orders, but I certainly can't 35 years ago, particularly since I hadn't even been to law school yet. but if you read his full opinion, it is the way I read it, and it's clear to me that he's saying that but for having an access easement, you could never grant the subdivision. So you granted the subdivision and you approved a variance to reduce the access easement to a width of less than what was provided, and you shouldn't have done that. But if you couldn't do that, then you couldn't subdivide it either. So that's why I'm assuming the language in the order is the action of the commission in subdividing the property is reversed. But, you know, that's just what it says. Any other commission members have any questions? Ms. Jones? Ms. Munday? Tracy, my experience, and again I'm not an attorney, but I'm a little bit more worldly in some things, with a Liz pendants, which he brought up, a Liz pendants is typically used in a foreclosure situation, but it's also used because the court takes basically possession of the issue or of the property until they make a final decision. That's my understanding of a Liz pendants. So Liz Pendant's on this situation would have never been filed, if I'm understanding what I think I know correctly. There would not have been a need for Liz Pendant's to be filed because the court never took possession or control of this situation until he said, which was the final draw on it, revoke it. Well, two things I'll say about that. One is that's far outside of my knowledge. Secondly, that's the kind of issue that I don't know that you all really want to get into determining today. However, I will tell you that I think I don't know when it's required and when it's not, but we do know one wasn't filed. Okay. Any other questions from the commission? I know. And please understand, I'm not attempting to be disrespectful in any way, but the bottom line is at this stage of the game, we've closed it off. You all are going to have to make those arguments when you get into the court situation as such. And what I'm trying to do is just make sure that our commission members have all their questions answered. Because currently, we're still under a ministerial directive here. And it's one of those things that we have three functions, one legislative, one judicial, and one ministerial. and the ministerial is the one we have the least amount of control over. But are there any other questions from the commission? Okay. If not, then what we're going to do is close. It's now open and ready for a motion. Mr. Berkley? I just see that we really don't have a choice here. If the access easement is not legit, you couldn't have subdivided it. So I'm going to make a motion that we go with the staff's recommendation to revoke Plan 78-253F for reasons provided by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkeley and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we accept the staff's recommendation of revocation of the plat, and that's Plan 78-253F. This is in accordance with the council's recommendations and in accordance with KRS 100-285. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. The motion carries. Okay, commission members. Actually, we have only one other item. I think that we, no, two other items, small items on the agenda as such. we have election of officers so I'll entertain a motion from the nominated committee by the way I withdraw my name I'm just kidding thank you okay Ms. Plumlee Yes, we are ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The nominating committee met and made the following recommendations. Chairperson Bill Wilson, Vice Chair Frank Penn, Secretary Carolyn Plumlee, and Parliamentarian here on Monday. Okay, you've heard the report of the nominating committee. First of all, we have to open the floor for nominations. we can open the floor for nominations for any of the positions again for chairperson william wilson vice chair mr frank penn secretary miss carolyn plumley parliamentarian ms karen monday are there any nominations from the floor for any of these particular positions are there any nominations from the floor for the any of these particular positions i'm doing what parliamentary procedure tells me to do just in case uh hearing none then we'll uh have a motion uh a recommendation from the we'll have a motion then to accept this slate by acclamation mr yeah mr chairman i'll move to accept this slate by acclamation okay do we have a second mr brewer it's been moved by mr owens seconded by mr brewer that that we accept the slate of Chairperson Mr. William Wilson, Vice Chairman Mr. Frank Penn, Secretary Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, Parliamentarian Ms. Karen Mundy for another year. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. I think I'll vote no. Thank you. The vote is unanimous, and I appreciate that. One other thing connected with that, and that is in the past, it goes under delegation of Secretary's duties. the commission passed procedure for carrying out the secretary's dues except the signing minutes has been to delegate the authority to the director of division planning and his staff so I need a motion for that to take place we could so move okay it's been properly moved in second that the Commission's past procedure will apply here that the authority is given to the director's division of planning and his staff for the authority to deal with the minutes any other discussion on the Motion. Hearing none, please vote when that comes up on your screens. Okay, the motion carries. Anything else? Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to remind you all that next week is a Planning Commission work session. We will be back in the Phoenix Building on the third floor. We'll be presenting Theme E for the Comprehensive Plan, and we also have some tax amendments to discuss with you as well. So we do have a full agenda next Thursday, 1.30 in the Phoenix Building, third floor. One quick question. What do you want us to do? You all want these? We'll be glad to collect those for you, Mr. Chair. You all can keep them, but we'll collect them. We're still on the air. Any other business to come before this commission? If not, yes. I don't know how many people are going to be out of town August 9th. Of course people are not, but just as far as quorums go, I'm personally out of town. Anybody else? Mike or Brian? Okay, good. I just want to bring it to your attention. You got it. I was just bringing it to your attention. Well, in that case, we'll follow you wherever you are. We're welcome to. Thank you. Any other issues to come or agenda items to come before the commission? Well, thank you on behalf of the commission for being elected to another year. And we'll try to do you justice with that in mind. Thanks staff for your support and thanks commission for your good work and the work that you do despite the fact you have no assigned parking. I thought I'd just lay that in there. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.