Bob Peterson and Charlie on the RMP, the Romito Measures Plan, helping them manage this massive project. Execute it. Absolutely. And you did some of the design work on the town branch tank, which is their biggest one, as you said, at over $20 million? $22 million. $22 million. That's a big structure. It's the largest that Crum, who the subcontractor is, is the largest freestanding that they make. They make quote-unquote standard size. Yes. Scalable size. Yeah. But then this tank is more unique because of its locale and really all of the engineering that's right behind us here. Absolutely. Yeah, this is a 5 million gallon tank. So it's a quarter of the size of that one. Absolutely. But people still don't notice it because it's countersunk as much as possible. This was a wasted little corner of the intersection there that people didn't really look at. And so you've got it, you said, 8 feet underground on this end or maybe 12 feet? Good afternoon, everybody. Today we're going to call the agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting for July 8, 2019. First things we're going to do is we're going to have a few housekeeping matters. Number one, make sure to turn your cell phones off or on silent so they don't go off during the hearings. Once we go through the docket today, there may be withdrawals or postponements, but the case is to be heard. If you want to come to the podium and testify, either as a proponent or an opponent of an application, I'll have you sworn in in the beginning. For items, normally if the staff has recommended approval, then the applicant will come forward and we will go through the hearing with the applicant. for some reason there is opposition. We will have those cases heard towards the end of the docket. We will have cases in which the staff has recommended disapproval. The staff will be the first one to give testimony. Do not approach us unless you're invited to. Don't speak unless you are recognized by the chair, which is me. I will have you come up. When you come up, you'll need to give your name. we will have when I go through the cases the staff will let me know if there are any letters in support or opposition and we look like we have a full room today so in this instance I will often limit the testimony of people and I would ask that testimony not be repetitive if one of your neighbors or someone else has already said something similar don't repeat the exact same thing we may do three minute limitations on public evidence today if if it looks like we have one one case has a lot of parties so with that being said the first item on our business is the approval of the minutes which staff has circulated I'm assuming everyone on the board has had a chance to review those and are there any comments or requests for revisions to the minutes if not I'll entertain a motion move to approve the minutes all right we have first and a second in discussion on the motion hearing none then I'll put it to a vote Okay, so that's the first item of business. The second item of business will be whether there are any cases to be heard before us today in which people want postponements, withdrawals, or anything else. Autumn, I believe there may be one withdrawal. Oh. We do have one application that was withdrawn. item number two under variance appeals PLNBOA 19-38 Abraham Marth was withdrawn via email. So is anyone here in relation to the application at 825 Lane Allen Road? Okay that case has been withdrawn we'll take it off the day's agenda. Are there any other withdrawals or postponements? Sir come on up. Good afternoon my name is Chris Nunn I'm here as the applicant for PLNBOA 19-00040 and I would like to request a postponement as recommended by the staffs that would be a postponement till August 12 2019 yes sir okay is there anyone here today related to 561 North Limestone okay at this point the applicant has asked for a postponement. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? I'm hearing none, but I'll entertain a motion. The move postponement for a month. Second. I have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? I'll call to a vote. Okay, we'll see you next month. Good luck with getting everything wrapped up. much good afternoon mr chair um i'm bringing up a plan that is actually i represent opposition to not the applicant for it's the last item on your agenda which is uh 19-45 the jester's paddock application several opponents in the crowd today we were all just at the paris pike overlay or paris pike commission that also heard this and we learned at that hearing that they may need to apply for another variance and so for the benefit of everybody who's here rather than having this heard twice we thought it might make sense to resolve it all at once but i understand that the board of adjustment staff may not have yet talked to the staff member that was at that meeting who informed everybody of that so i'm really just bringing it to the board's attention so we don't have to do this two consecutive months but bringing it up and i guess asking for staff's comments okay But you're the opponent. Yeah, I represent the opponent. Is the applicant here? Okay. Well, we'll take that under consideration, but I'm going to go through the docket since that was just really a statement. So with that being said, we will now call each case. What I'll do is I'm going to call to make sure the applicant is present, And then if there's any opposition or any witnesses that want to testify, we will take that off the abbreviated docket to be heard towards the end. Cases in which they are uncontroversial, we will have those heard very quickly. So the first item will be a variance appeal, PLNBOA 19-35, Highgate's request for a variance related to 4128 Todd's Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. You don't have to come up yet. Is there anyone here who wants to speak to this case? This is 4128 Todd's Road. All right. We'll have this one heard first on the abbreviated. The next item is item number three, variance appeal, PLNBOA 19-41, Copper Cows LLC, in relation to 643645 North Limestone. Is applicant present? Yes. Okay, thank you, sir. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on behalf of this application? Or against it. Or against it? Okay. Let's see. On this one, it looks like staff has recommended approval of a lesser variant, so this one may be heard. We'll come back to it. uh... peel and be away nineteen dash forty three cow pluman regarding five four three west third street applicant present thank you sir zero one here wants to speak for against this application right will have that one next time is peel and be away nineteen dash four four kevin edit regarding five two three maryland avenues applicant present Thank you, sir. Anyone here regarding that application that wants to be heard today? For or against? All right. Now we're in the conditional use appeals, PLM BOA 1939, Windy Corner, regarding 943 Mirror Station Road. Is applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is anyone here who wants to speak on behalf either for or against this application? All right. Next one is conditional appeal PLN BOA 1942 Root and Riddle Partners regarding 2150 Georgetown Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you sir. Anyone here to speak for or against this application? Lastly, we have PLN BOA 1945 Horseshoe Bend Vineyard, LLC, doing business as Jester's Paddock regarding 4688 Paris Pike. Applicant present, I believe. Yes? Is anyone here to speak for or against this application today? Please raise your hand. All right. So that won't be heard. so what we'll do now since we've gone through the items everyone who plans on coming to the podium today to speak whether an applicant in opposition or uh or in favor of an application please stand and raise your right hand i swear you in Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. So the first item we have that was on the abbreviated schedule was PLMBOA 1935 High Gates. request for variances related to 4128 Todd's Road. The applicant, please go up, sir. My name is Tom Hadfield. I'm with the EA Partners representing Highgates, and we are in agreement with all the conditions. Thank you, sir. That was very quick. Anyone on the board have any questions for the witness? Well, hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I have a question, not necessarily for the witness. In the staff report, it was noted that there was concern about precedent setting with the involvement with the urban service boundary. And I'm wondering if condition, I think it's number three. C. C is worded strongly enough that it makes note that this is not to be precedent setting. Which one? Okay, let me bring it up. Let me find what I'm looking for here. yeah okay so the the staff's recommended recommendation for approval is uh you know the c is the one is the what i'm questioning the strict application of the zoning ordinance could create an unnecessary hardship as the location of the urban service boundary creates a configuration that would reduce the overall buildable area um but in the staff in the staff report you know the the staff makes it very clear that they do not want this to be considered precedent setting. So it has to do with variance number two, that the expansion area is unique given its relationship to the urban service boundary. And it's especially important in these areas to create context sensitive development. And so I'm not wording this very well, but I just want to make sure that we aren't setting a precedent here by approving this application because of the involvement with the urban service boundary. Is that a question? Yeah, it is a question. You know, to whoever wants to, you know, the staff or the legal department wants to respond to this. As you mentioned, I think we addressed it pretty heavily within the body of the staff report. The condition could perhaps be beefed up a little bit to further sort of explain the situation if the board felt it was necessary. I think that the intent of it not setting a precedent, as I said, is sort of beefed up within the body of the staff report, and we would probably be looking to the that full report when considering other requests but at a glance perhaps this condition could be changed a little bit if the board wanted to that's my concern and i you know and i i don't know what's considered you know um when when other other requests will become before the board and it just seems to me that you know You've made a very strong statement in the staff report, and I think that for me, having a little stronger language in the reasons for approval would be helpful, would have more meaning. May I also, and I had a note of the exact same thing, but the staff report did indicate it should not be precedent setting. but I wonder if some kind of statement like you suggested, the fact that the configuration of the land itself presents a situation where maybe an exception can be made and maybe that should be part of the staff report and our decision. You know, I think it's all well and good to say that we're not creating a precedent, but everything we do officially by taking a vote sets a precedent, especially if we haven't done it before. So I'm not sure that you can cure the problem of the concern of setting a precedent by changing the language, because if we approve this, we are setting a precedent. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying that we should be aware of the legal effect of our decision. and it does, it will set a precedent, in my legal opinion. And legal? Hi, yeah, Chad Edwards from the Law Department. Yes, you're correct, this does set a precedent. It's not a legally binding precedent in the same way that it would be in a court of law. But, yes, these are, you know, public records, and they're available for future applicants to consult. I'll also add, I'm happy to work with staff. I did not compose these proposed findings of facts. However, if the board would like to revise these to make that language about this being a special circumstance more strongly worded, I'm happy to work with staff to prepare that language for you. Perhaps something to the effect to adding this to the language of item C at the beginning, based on the intersection of the urban service boundary through the subject property strict application? Would that perhaps? I'd be happier with that. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I would be happier with that. No, I think that would be most appropriate. So what's the proposed language? The proposed language would be based on the intersection of the urban service boundary through the subject property and then the remainder of the language from item C. Are you okay with that? Yeah, and that's really the crux of the application is because of the way the expansion area boundary was carved through this piece of property. Most zone changes or expansionary go down property lines, but in this case, it split it. And so you are putting a hardship on it when you split a piece of property and then try to apply a 100-foot setback. So that's really what – this is not going to be a similar situation around town. Hopefully, most areas follow property lines. So this will not create a whole bunch of new applications for you, I don't believe. And I don't think adding that language creates any undue burden on your client. Okay. We still agree with the conditions. Okay. Could you just answer the – I read this, and it's important to create areas with context-sensitive development. Maybe just expand on how your development is context-sensitive. Is that a staff quote or is that from the applicant? That sounds like a staff quote to me. Context sensitive. I think that I wrote that. I think here the context is making sure that we're respecting the boundary. The land is zoned for residential use. at a certain density it's eAR one so that intent of that zone is being met by this development yes but since it is abutting the urban service boundary we want to be sure that that that line is being respected and that that what we're doing is not hindering that that boundary and that feeling of the urban service boundary maybe expand maybe you can on the didn't quite understand the uh the agreement that was made between you and the adjacent you and the adjacent property um what was that agreement again i don't have the details of that but it involves the screening and fencing along the uh the actual property line and not the urban service boundary the the actual property line is probably another hundred feet to the east and and that is where the the agreement for the additional screening and fencing will be I don't have those details with me a hundred feet east of the property line it is further to the east than the actual zone line of the ER one zone normally you'd have to have the buffer between the two zones but in this instance given the development it made more sense according to staff applicant to buffer the agricultural side side in that one ar okay lot got it essentially the components of the buffer are are what they would be required to be it's just shifting location to the property line instead of the urban service boundary okay and this is the is that the first time this has happened or is this normal um that's not the first time this has happened um there we're looking at several different variances here so there are different occurrences. Okay. Okay. But the agreement with the property owner is something that's sort of an out for getting a variance. There are a set of requirements that you can meet or you can have an agreement with the adjacent property owner. So a couple of the items that had been previously requested as variances that we had recommended for disapproval have been resolved by this agreement with the adjoining property owner. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions, comments? All right, could we go ahead and Autumn, would you put the revised language, have that put up on the screen so it's shown to the audience and public at home? Thank you. looking at on the screen is the proposed revision to the beginning of C on the staff's recommendations number C where we would add this new clause to the beginning of the sentence. So the report will essentially be amended to incorporate this provision. So with that being said, if there are no more questions, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN VOA 19-35 Highgate's request for variances to reduce the landscape buffer area between a residential zone and the urban services boundary from five feet to zero feet in order to relocate the landscape buffer to the existing property line. Two, to reduce the setback for building the structures from the rural service area boundary from 100 feet to 50 feet to allow the creation of a buildable of buildable lots adjacent to the rsa where it intersects the existing property and three to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 100 feet on the proposed ar zone lot at a split zone expansion residential one slash agricultural rural area zone at 4128 tods road based upon the recommendations including the amended language to recommendation number c and subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? I second. I think Mr. Clark said that first. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll put it to the vote. I'd like to vote, but Granicus is not letting. Is it not? Well, if you would verbally. I vote yea. Mr. Glover votes yay. His computer is not letting him sign in if we could have someone maybe from the clerk's office come and help him. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. Thank you. All right. Okay, so the next item we have on our agenda is, sorry, I flipped the page already. PLM BOA 1941, Copper Cows LLC's variance requests related to 643 and 645 North Limestone. Sir, if you want to come up, I am hoping this will be one not to be heard, but we'll see what you say. I'm Jeff Feldman. I'm the owner of Copper Cows LLC. And I think this is a reasonable compromise. and I think it's appropriate in this situation. So you're willing to have the 10 foot instead of the 20 foot? I am. Okay. Thank you, sir. So you're agreeable to the two conditions staff has requested? I am. All right. Well, then it will be an abbreviated hearing. Okay. Don't go anywhere yet. Are there any questions from the board for staff or for the applicant? Yes. Not quite so abbreviated as we'd hoped. Is there a definition of alley? It is defined in the ordinance and it is a classification. This is classified as a street. An alley is defined as a street? No, no, no. An alley and a street are separate. This is not an alley. Okay. And Harry is not an alley, it's a street. Harry is not an alley. It is a street. It looks like an alley. But it functions much like an alley, which is why we recommended approval of a variance for how it would be treated if it were an alley. So just for my edification and maybe somebody else's, how does a thoroughfare get defined as an alley or a street? Because, I mean, Harry Street. Perhaps traffic could comment. I think the ordinance, doesn't the ordinance define the difference? Does it list all of them or just, how does that happen? It is very confusing. but there is widths. It's the amount of right-of-way. It's based on the pavement width, the amount of right-of-way there is, as well as the functionality of the road. And does somebody just go through and designate things as streets or alleys? Yes. Okay. I won't ask who designated this one as a street. Way before my time. Yeah. Thanks. And I will say some of these older streets have been long grassed over, but technically they're still streets that have to be closed. Is this a two-way street? Yes. Yes? No? Yes. It is? It is technically, but it's kind of like the old country roads. When you meet somebody, you've got to get over to the side. Thank you. Does that satisfy your question, Mr. Glover? It does, sir. Okay. Any additional questions for applicant staff? I'd just like to say Mr. Feldman's done a nice job on these properties, and I think that the addition of these structures will enhance the beautification of the street. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Well, if there are no other questions, then I will entertain a motion. I move to approve PLNBOA 19-41 Copper Cow LLC's request for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet in order to construct accessory buildings on two through-lot properties within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 643 and 645 North Limestone, based on staff's recommendations of approval of a lesser variance from 20 feet to 10 feet, and then subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? Second the motion. Any question of the motion? Hearing none, then please vote. The application is approved. Good luck with your project, sir. Thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate your help. Thank you. Okay, so the next one is another one that could be heard or abbreviated, but it is PLM-B08-1943 Kyle Plumman's request for a variance at 543 West 3rd Street. Come on up, sir. If you could state your name for the record. I'm Kyle Plowman. I'm the homeowner. And staff has recommended approval, but they have made some slight modifications to your request. Have you seen those? Yep. Are you agreeable to those? Yep, I am. Okay. And they have two conditions they have set forth. You've seen those? Yes, I have. And you're agreeable to those? Yes. All right. Well, that handles the questions I have. Anyone else have questions for the applicant or for staff? We do have one item. The applicant has come to me and determined that he actually does not need quite as large a variance. From 30 to 15 feet, he actually will be building at 24 feet. 22 feet. So just for your reference, if you'd like to change that number from 15 to 22, our recommendation would obviously be the same since it is a lesser request. Oh, okay, I see. so we would be recommending approval to reduce the required rear yard from 30 feet to 22 feet rather than 15 feet i got you yeah yeah okay well i'll be generous of you mr plumbin if you let that slide and we would never have known yeah so if just for everyone's understand on the screen here where it says reduce the required rear yard from 30 feet to 15 it will now be from 30 feet to 22 feet in order to construct in addition within the defined infill anything else i just want to make sure i understand that you're you're replacing your garage you're you're taking down the garage where it's currently located and you're going to reconstruct a new one at that location yep okay i looked at the at your plans and and it didn't look like the garage was back in the back. No, I'm moving it forward. Oh, okay. Any additional questions? All right, hearing none, then I'll put it to a vote. Sorry, a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 19-43, Kyle Pullman requesting variance for one, reduce the required side yard setback from six feet to two feet in order to construct a new detached garage, and two, to reduce the required rear yard from 30 feet to 22 feet in order to construct an addition within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two-family residential zone property at 543 West 3rd Street, based on the recommendations of the staff subject to the conditions, the two conditions listed. So move. Is there a second? Second. We've got a second for Mr. Needham. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we'll vote. Can we clarify as to whether, I'm sorry, um that the motion was made for the initial request um from six feet to two feet staff's recommendation is from six feet to three feet just to clarify which you're approving minor stay mr clark we were we are approving the three feet that's correct that's correct but good catch yes I vote yes. Mr. Glover votes yes. Just so everybody will know. All right, the application is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bye. The next item on our agenda is PLM BOA 19-44 Kevin Ebbett regarding 523 Maryland Avenue. Is applicant present? Come on up to the podium, sir. And state your name for the record. Kevin Ebbett. Good afternoon, Mr. Ebbett. Staff has recommended approval. That approval is subject to two conditions. Have you seen those conditions? Yes. And you are agreeable to abide by those conditions? Yes. Thank you, sir. Is there any questions for Mr. Ebbett or for staff at this time? Yes, I have a question. Article 15-2B7 says that one of the last sentences listed there says, in no case shall the addition be closer than three feet to the joining line. So do we have authority in the light of that ordinance language to do what has been applied for? Don't worry, it's not for you to answer. No, no. That's for staff and legal. Staff and legal. I mean, we're proposing to grant a variance, but the language of the article, Article 15.2, gave me some pause, and I'm not sure. I think the context of that language is sort of with regard to the earlier part of that ordinance, that if the side yard is legally non-conforming, additions may be made, which have the same side yard as the original structure. So rather than making it more non-conforming, we're going through the variance process to make it a legal conforming setback. Okay. Okay. We have had variances for less than three feet before, so that is something that has been done. So this last sentence refers to the first part of the ordinance rather than being universally applied? Right. Okay. That satisfies me. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right. Hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. I move for approval for PLN VOA 19-44, Kevin Ebbett's request for variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 3 feet to 1 foot in order to construct an addition at an existing house within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single family resident zone at 523 Maryland Avenue. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Glover seconds. Any questions? Concerns? Not? I'll put it to a vote. I vote yay. Now, Mr. Ebbett, did you think you were going to answer that question? No, no. Okay, good. Just didn't know where it was going to go. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. I couldn't answer it. Okay, so the next item is another one that, let me see here. Oh, we're getting down to them. This one is for PLM BOA 1939 Windy Corner LLC's request for a conditional use permit at 943 Muir Station Road. Mr. Walburn, good to see you again. Good to see you. The staff has recommended approval with an amended site plan to include the paving. We're agreeable to that. Okay. Just for everybody's satisfaction, this lot was graveled in 2013 before my clients owned it. They bought it. They assumed that whomever had done that had permission to do it. They didn't. And so when they went out to fill in the holes in the gravel, got a citation. So they've pursued this application. We've been in conversation with staff about timing, but we're generally agreeable to the condition. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff to the applicant? this application. I have a question. I was just interested in the fact that the zoning ordinance says gravel is not a suitable surface for parking. Does that mean gravel is not a preferred substance? Gravel is not a permitted surface. So if you have a gravel lodger in non-compliance? Correct, or perhaps legally nonconforming if it were before that language were introduced into the ordinance, which was in the early 2000s. In the early 2000s. Yes. Okay, thanks. Before my time, I'm sure. Any additional questions? Yes, I'd like to ask staff the question. what is the reason for recommending that the entrance to the lot be across from the entrance that exists already, rather than closer to the intersection? This is requested by staff and, I think, by traffic engineering to create a more, to line those entrances up for future development, perhaps. it's generally best practice to have the intersections across from one another rather than staggered because of the conflict points that that creates for traffic patterns. And I believe it's for sight. That way you see where people are turning. But I can let traffic engineering... The original proposal had an entrance very close to the intersection, which for turning movements from the secondary road, the further setback allows for a driver to visually see a car coming, more response time, as well as not creating conflicts of turning vehicles from two separate locations. You're more apt to see what the driver across from you is doing if your entrances are lined up. Good. Thank you. I understand that. Any additional questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLNDOA 19-39 Windy Corner LLC's request for a conditional use permit to continue use of an existing gravel parking lot in the B1 portion of a split zone to neighborhood business B1 and agricultural rural AR zone at 943 Neur Station Road for reasons recommended by the staff with an amended site plan to include paving and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. I'll second. Any questions on the motion, discussion? Hearing none, I'll put it to a vote. Yay. applications of ways I had is there an issue Tammy okay it's approved thank you you're welcome this tell me not know he's on the screen yeah I think she's doing it for him yeah she just knows what's gonna say sometimes okay so the next item on our agenda on the abbreviated agenda is PLM BOA 19-42 Roode and Riddle partners at 2150 Georgetown Road and it's a conditional use permit going up sir state your name for the record yes mr. chairman Jeff Pearson representing Roode and Riddle partners We have reviewed the conditions and we agree with all of them. Thank you, sir. Does anyone on the board have questions for staff or the applicant at this time? Well, hearing none, does anyone want to make a motion? I move we approve PLN BOA 19-42 Rood and Riddle Partners request for a conditional use permit to expand parking for an equine hospital at a split zone agricultural urban AU highway service business B3 in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone property at 2150 Georgetown Road. based on staff's recommendations and subject to the four conditions the staff has outlined. A second. We have a first and a second on the motion. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll put it to a vote. Good. Your application is approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Okay, so this brings us to the last case of the day, which is PLMBOA 1945 Horseshoe Bend Vineyard, LLC, doing business as Jester's Paddock, related to a conditional use permit at 4688 Parris Pike. I saw the applicant is present. We do have several letters of opposition for this one that I will distribute at this time. Yes, how many do you have, you think? About ten. Okay, well, give us a minute. they're going to pass those out. In the meantime, I'll ask some questions for you guys. Who here plans on testifying today? Raise your hand high so I can get a count. Okay. And everyone else just here to watch? Oh, wait. Mr. Terry, if it helps, Mr. Barkley here and I are both attorneys that represent several of the people that are in the room and so if you could indulge us you could probably safely limit okay yeah that's fine going up sir yes my name is brian parnell i'm the operations manager for adjusters paddock and i'm the uh representing the applicant for this process if possible we'd actually like to ask for continuance or an extension to the next hearing i would have addressed this in the beginning but we had just wrapped up the paris by corridor commission's meeting and needed a couple seconds to kind of address some of the things they brought up and look at the articles in question um so if that's a possibility i'd like to uh to request that at this moment so so the request would be to postpone till our august 12th meeting that is correct sir so 30 days okay well we will definitely entertain that if you want to does anyone have a question for the applicant regarding the postponement it sounds like this is illusion alluding to the item that mr walburn brought to our attention at the the beginning of the hearing. Yeah, the variance question, that's correct. Okay, perfect. If you want to have a seat, is there anyone here in opposition to us postponing for 30 days for the potential issue related to the earlier meeting is concerned? I'm sorry to have muddied the water here a little bit. I think Board of Adjustment staff's position, and certainly let them speak for themselves, is that that variance is not needed. Of course, everybody is down here. In the Paris Pike meeting, it was reflected that it was, but in defense of that staff member, she was kind of put on the spot, and I don't know whether she had complete information or not. If that variance isn't needed, we'd like to go forward today because everybody's here and we're prepared. If that variance is needed, then there's no point in having two hearings. I think that would be, at least for the folks I represent. Okay. All right, Ms. Wilbur, I'll have the applicant come back up. and then we'll hear from him then i'll let staff weigh in yes sir as to addressing mr wilburn's concerns uh that's exactly why we're asking for um the new hearing date we want the opportunity to be able to take a look and see if that variance is actually required and how we can address the issue um because of what was brought up at the paris by corridor commission okay thank you sir autumn our position is that that variance is not required who was there on behalf of staff um planning services management was there um jim nor i were there okay so we are we are we sure exactly what variance was discussed yes yes um the variance was related to the the lot frontage requirement for the Paris Pike overlay zone. And that's an engine I had discussed earlier in the week, and we had determined that we did not believe a variance was required there. Okay. Well, if that can, we'll come back up one more time. So it appears the staff has looked at that, and they have decided that they do not believe that that variance. Well, since that's who we would actually have been working with on the process and going from there, we're prepared to go forward at least to address the issues that are in front of the hearing today. Okay. So you ready to go forward? Yes, sir. Thank you. Perfect. Well, don't go anywhere yet. Fair enough. I'm going to have you some more questions, and then we'll start with the process. The staff has recommended approval. We've got some letters in opposition to look at. The staff has recommended eight conditions for their approval. Have you read those? Yes, I have. And you're agreeable to abide by those? Yes, sir. Okay. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to take a quick recess so people can stretch their legs, and then we'll read these letters. And once we come back, we'll give your presentation, explain what you're doing, why you need the different items, and at that point we'll have other people discuss. You will get an opportunity to rebut, and then normally I will close the hearing to public testimony. We'll deliberate and we'll make a decision. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. All right. we'll recess for a couple minutes thank you everyone for your patience while we were in recess I thought it'd be a very quick one while we read some letters on but in the meantime we have I have discussed with our legal department who has discussed with staff and I believe with the applicant and with some of the parties involved. And so if I could have the applicant come forward. It is my understanding you would like to renew your request for a postponement until August 12th? Yeah, for the opportunity to kind of review some of the issues that are at hand and to seek legal counsel to address them specifically so that parties in opposition, they've made their primary interests known and gives us an opportunity to address those issues. Okay. And I believe my understanding is the question has become if the variance is needed, it could possibly make that being granted a condition to us approving the conditional use and the staff wants to have time to look into that issue to make sure. We do want to look into that issue further, yes. Are you? Yeah, I just want to confirm that. Yes. Yes. So it's on the record. Right. Okay. All right. Oh, go ahead. Just for the record. It's our position that that variance does not apply. We agree with the staff's initial interpretation. However, we do want to seek the opportunity to make sure that we button that up so that we do this process with due diligence. Understand. Okay, if you want to have a seat real quick. Thank you very much. Council for the parties. I don't know if I'm spokesman for the whole group, but since we are arguing this is a threshold issue, in order for this to be conclusively resolved, we would reluctantly agree to a postponement. All right. Thank you, sir. Please sit your name for the record. Clay Barkley representing Hard Scuffle Incorporated, and they have no objection to postponing it a month. All right. Thank you. Does anyone here have an objection to postponement for one month that wants to be heard today? All right. Does anyone from the board have any questions, or do they want to discuss and or make a motion for a postponement until next month? Yes. Okay. Well, I need a motion. I move that we postpone this case until next month's meeting. And to clarify, that's PLNBOA 1945 Horseshoe Bend Vineyard regarding 4688 Paris Pike. And we would be postponing, bear with me, until August 12, 2019 meeting at 1.30 p.m. Is there a second? I second the motion. Any discussions on the motion? All right, I'll put the motion to a vote. Motion carries. That means this case will be postponed and be heard next month to give the applicant, some of the opponents and staff opportunity to review things that have come to light today. I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope to see all you all next month. Okay, so, oh, did I not vote? My vote is yes. Did it not? I hit the S button. Okay. All right. Yeah, I'm going to do that. Yeah. I'm going to wait for, yeah. I'm going to give everyone about a couple minutes to clear out. You guys can talk in the hallway, but we do have some more business to finish up today. Thank you. So the next item on board items, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to have legal not give us an in-depth, but just to let us know about one of the cases we heard last month and that it's been appealed, and just kind of a little bit about what the process is, because I believe this is the first appeal that I can recall since I've been on the board, so you can just let everyone know you representing us and how that works. The law department is representing the Board of Adjustment. Each of you have probably served with that complaint related to the High Street demolition property. And initially, I believe there is a hearing scheduled on the 12th related to the injunction request by the Bluegrass Trust to initially prevent them from issuing the demolition permit to demolish the building. But the issues in the case will then proceed from that point, assuming that an injunction gets issued, about your determination that the ordinance would not automatically stay the issuance of that demolition permit. And recognize this is a little bit weird because there was an earlier appeal. Remember from the case being presented to you at your last meeting where the actual issue of the demolition of that property was determined by both the BOAR and the Planning Commission? That was also appealed to court. but the circuit court had dismissed it as you will recall. That has also been appealed to the court of appeals. So your appeal is a little bit different or strange because there's a side case that directly deals with the matter as well. So Friday, if that hearing goes forward, we'll know about whether or not there's an injunction and then we can update you on what occurs after that. I talked to the legal department, and we decided since they were giving us such a 20,000-foot review, we did not need to go into a closed session, but if there are any updates next month, we can go into a closed session. Those can be discussed with the legal department and to let us know at that point. So if you have any questions of a legal nature, then we should go into a closed session, but if not, then we'll just wait to get an update next month. thank you sir appreciate it as always are there any other items that any board members want to bring up today anything Steph wants to bring up to our attention okay our next meeting is August 12 2019 at 1.30 and I will declare this meeting adjourned thank you I'm sorry. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Yeah, I'm gonna make a man Just listen It's hard to take