# Board of Adjustment - October 14, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 14, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4858 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4858?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-10-14 - **Last revised**: October 14, 2019 - **Length**: 28,148 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 Board of Adjustment convened on October 14, 2019, at 1:33 PM at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed 11 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 12 votes on various land use matters including conditional use permits, variances, and administrative appeals. The meeting covered a diverse range of development requests, from commercial projects like an extended stay hotel and parking facilities to residential matters involving garage construction and setback modifications. Of the 11 items considered, 9 were approved, 1 was denied, and 1 was postponed for future consideration. No public comments were recorded during this meeting session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 14, 2019: • Branden Gross • Raquel Carter • Joan Whitman • Harry Clarke • Chad Needham • Jan Meyer • Thomas Glover All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted twelve roll call votes during the October 14, 2019 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Minutes Approval**: Thomas Glover motioned to approve the September 9, 2019 meeting minutes, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Chad Needham, Jan Meyer, and Thomas Glover. **Case PLN-BOA-19-00071**: Harry Clarke motioned to postpone James McGee's junk yard conditional use permit request until December 9, 2019, seconded by Chad Needham. The postponement passed unanimously 7-0. **Case PLN-BOA-19-00073**: Thomas Glover motioned to approve Ralph & DK Templeton's variance and administrative appeal request, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed 6-1 with conditions, with Raquel Carter voting against. **Case PLN-BOA-19-00067**: Raquel Carter motioned to approve Boone Contracting's fence height variance, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with one condition. **Case PLN-BOA-19-00063**: Harry Clarke motioned to approve Luftrade's extended stay hotel conditional use permit, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with four conditions. **Case PLN-BOA-19-00070**: Raquel Carter motioned to approve Martine's Pastries' parking lot conditional use permit, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed 6-0 with one abstention and five conditions. Chad Needham abstained. **Cases PLN-BOA-19-00060 and PLN-BOA-19-00061**: Two Fayette County Local Development Corporation requests were approved. The setback variance passed 5-2 (Jan Meyer and Thomas Glover voting against), while the parking variance passed 6-1 (Thomas Glover voting against). **Case PLN-BOA-19-00072**: Jan Meyer motioned to approve Viktor Chepak's parking setback variance, but the motion failed 0-7 with all members voting against approval. **Case PLN-BOA-19-00068**: Thomas Glover motioned to approve the Tiptons' garage variance, passing 4-3 with Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, and Jan Meyer voting against. **Cases PLN-BOA-19-00069 and PLN-BOA-19-00074**: Kiet Do and Ana Ruzic's variance request passed unanimously 7-0, while Jeremy Young's building permit appeal passed 5-2 with Joan Whitman and Jan Meyer voting against. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among board members. **Jeremy Young's Building Permit Appeal** The primary point of contention involved Jeremy Young's appeal challenging the issuance of a building permit. The disagreement centered on whether the permit should have been granted, with Young arguing that the permit approval was made in error. The specific issue at stake was the expansion of a non-conforming use. Young contended that the building permit would allow for activities or structures that did not comply with current zoning regulations, representing an inappropriate expansion of a use that was already non-conforming to existing standards. After deliberation, the board ultimately sided with the appellant. The board approved Young's appeal, officially determining that the original permit issuance was indeed in error. The decision was based on the finding that granting the permit would have improperly allowed the expansion of a non-conforming use, which violated applicable zoning requirements. This contested item required the board to carefully evaluate zoning compliance issues and determine whether the initial permit approval process had been conducted properly. The split vote indicates there was significant disagreement among board members about the merits of the appeal, though the final outcome favored the appellant's position that the permit should not have been issued. ## James McGee's request for a conditional use permit to operate a junk yard [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-19-00071, James McGee's request for a conditional use permit to operate a junk yard in a Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone. Staff presented concerns regarding the proposed junk yard operation and recommended postponement of the application. The primary issues identified centered on potential environmental impacts that required additional review and analysis before the board could make an informed decision. Key speakers during the discussion included James Marx and Branden Gross, who addressed various aspects of the proposal and the staff's recommendations for delay. The staff's recommendation for postponement was based on the need for further review of environmental considerations associated with the junk yard operation. These concerns needed to be thoroughly evaluated before the conditional use permit could be properly assessed by the board. Following the presentation and discussion of the staff's findings and recommendations, the board voted to postpone consideration of McGee's conditional use permit application. This postponement will allow staff additional time to conduct the necessary environmental review and address the identified concerns before bringing the matter back before the board for final consideration. The postponement ensures that all environmental impacts and regulatory requirements can be properly evaluated before making a decision on whether to grant the conditional use permit for the proposed junk yard operation in the Heavy Industrial zone. ## Ralph & DK Templeton's request for a variance and administrative appeal [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00073, a request from Ralph & DK Templeton for both a variance and an administrative appeal related to a proposed new carport on their property. The applicants sought two specific approvals: • A variance to reduce the required side yard setback for the carport construction • An administrative appeal to increase the total allowable square footage of accessory structures beyond standard limits Key speakers during the discussion included Shane Umphries and Raquel Carter, who presented details about the request and provided analysis of the proposal. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of both the variance and administrative appeal, contingent upon specific conditions being met by the applicants. The staff report indicated that the request met the necessary criteria for granting the variance and that the administrative appeal had merit for the increased accessory structure allowance. The Board of Adjustment ultimately approved the request, allowing the Templetons to proceed with their carport construction plans under the modified setback requirements and expanded accessory structure square footage limits, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. This approval enables the property owners to move forward with their carport project while maintaining compliance with local zoning regulations through the granted variance and successful administrative appeal. ## Boone Contracting, LLC's request for variances to increase the allowable height [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-19-00067, a request from Boone Contracting, LLC for variances to increase the allowable height of a fence located within a front yard. John Latta served as a key speaker during the discussion of this variance request. The application sought to exceed the standard height restrictions for fencing in front yard areas, which typically have lower height limits than side or rear yard fencing. Staff presented their analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variances, subject to specific conditions. The conditions were designed to ensure the proposed fence height increase would be appropriate for the location and would not negatively impact the surrounding area or neighborhood character. The board reviewed the staff recommendation and the specific circumstances of the property that warranted the variance request. After consideration of the application materials and staff analysis, the board approved the variance request, allowing Boone Contracting, LLC to proceed with the fence installation at the increased height as requested. The approval enables the applicant to construct or modify the fence beyond the standard height limitations that would normally apply to front yard fencing, provided they comply with the conditions established by staff and approved by the board. ## Luftrade, LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an extended stay hotel [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-19-00063, submitted by Luftrade, LLC for a conditional use permit to operate an extended stay hotel in the Historic Overlay (H-1)/Neighborhood Business (B-1) zones. Brian Luftman spoke on behalf of the application during the discussion. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with specified conditions. The board approved the conditional use permit request for the extended stay hotel project. *Note: Limited transcript information was available for this agenda item. The summary reflects the basic procedural elements and outcome of the discussion.* ## Martine's Pastries' request for a conditional use permit for a parking lot [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-19-00070, a request from Martine's Pastries for a conditional use permit to establish a parking lot. The parking lot would serve an existing non-conforming use at the business location. Key speakers for the application included Martine Holzman and Jim Holzman, who presented the request to the board. The proposed parking lot was designed to address parking needs for the existing pastry business operations. Staff presented their analysis of the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to specific conditions. The staff report indicated that the parking lot would help support the existing non-conforming use while meeting applicable zoning requirements. The board reviewed the application materials and heard from the applicants regarding the specifics of their proposal. The discussion focused on how the additional parking would serve the business needs and comply with local zoning standards. Following their review and discussion of the application, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for Martine's Pastries' parking lot request. The approval included the conditions recommended by staff to ensure compliance with zoning requirements and appropriate development standards. The approved conditional use permit will allow Martine's Pastries to proceed with developing the parking lot to support their existing business operations. ## Fayette County Local Development Corporation's request for variances to reduce side yard setbacks [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-19-00060, a request from the Fayette County Local Development Corporation for variances to reduce required side yard setbacks for the construction of two duplexes. Derek Thomas presented the case to the board, explaining the details of the variance request. The Local Development Corporation sought to reduce the standard side yard setback requirements to accommodate the proposed duplex construction on the property. Staff recommended approval of the variance request, contingent upon specific conditions being met. The staff analysis determined that the variance met the necessary criteria for approval under the county's zoning ordinance. The board approved the variance request following the staff recommendation. The approval allows the Fayette County Local Development Corporation to proceed with construction of the two duplexes with the reduced side yard setbacks, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. This variance enables the development to move forward while maintaining compliance with county development standards through the approved modifications to the setback requirements. ## Fayette County Local Development Corporation's request for a variance to decrease parking spaces [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00061, a request from the Fayette County Local Development Corporation for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces for a duplex development. Derek Thomas presented the case to the board, providing details about the parking variance request. The staff had conducted a review of the application and recommended approval of the variance, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The discussion centered on the Local Development Corporation's justification for needing fewer parking spaces than typically required under county zoning regulations for duplex properties. While the specific details of the parking reduction and conditions were not elaborated in the available materials, the request went through the standard variance review process. Following the presentation and any board discussion, the Board of Appeals voted to approve the variance request. The approval allows the Fayette County Local Development Corporation to proceed with their duplex project using the reduced parking requirements, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. This approval represents the board's determination that the variance request met the necessary criteria for granting relief from standard parking requirements while still maintaining appropriate development standards for the property. ## Viktor Chepak's request for a variance to reduce setback for additional paved parking [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered case PLN-BOA-19-00072, a request by Viktor Chepak for a variance to reduce the minimum setback requirements for additional paved parking on his property. Viktor Chepak presented his request to the board, seeking approval to install paved parking with reduced setbacks from the standard requirements. The application represented an attempt to add parking capacity while working within the constraints of the existing property layout. Staff presented their analysis of the variance request and recommended disapproval. The primary concern cited by staff was that the proposed parking did not comply with the previously approved permit for the property. This non-compliance with existing permit conditions formed the basis for staff's negative recommendation. The board reviewed the staff report, the applicant's presentation, and the specific details of how the proposed parking configuration would deviate from standard setback requirements. The discussion focused on the relationship between the current variance request and the existing permit obligations that had not been fulfilled. After considering the evidence presented and staff's recommendation, the board voted to deny the variance request. The denial was based on the finding that the applicant had not complied with the conditions of the previously approved permit, making it inappropriate to grant additional variances for the property. The decision means that Viktor Chepak cannot proceed with the additional paved parking as proposed and would need to either comply with standard setback requirements or address the outstanding permit compliance issues before seeking further variances. ## Darci and Colby Tipton's request for a variance to reduce side yard for a new garage [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered case PLN-BOA-19-00068, a request by Darci and Colby Tipton for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback to construct a new garage on their property. Darci Tipton spoke on behalf of the application, presenting the request to the board. The proposed garage would require a reduction in the standard side yard setback requirements established by the zoning ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the variance request, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The specific conditions and details of the setback reduction were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the staff analysis determined that the request met the criteria for granting a variance. The board reviewed the application and staff recommendation during their deliberations. No significant concerns or opposition were noted during the discussion of this item. The Board of Adjustment approved the variance request, allowing the Tiptons to proceed with construction of their new garage with the reduced side yard setback as requested. The approval was granted subject to the conditions recommended by staff. This variance will enable the property owners to construct the garage while maintaining compliance with zoning requirements through the approved modification to the standard setback provisions. ## Kiet Do and Ana Ruzic's request for variances for an addition and detached garage [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-19-00069, submitted by Kiet Do and Ana Ruzic requesting variances to reduce the required rear and side yard setbacks for a proposed addition and detached garage on their property. Scott Dreyer presented the staff analysis and recommendation for this variance request. The applicants sought relief from the standard setback requirements to accommodate their planned home addition and the construction of a new detached garage structure. Staff conducted a thorough review of the proposal and determined that the requested variances met the necessary criteria for approval. The analysis likely considered factors such as the unique characteristics of the property, potential impacts on neighboring properties, and whether the variances would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Following the staff presentation and any discussion by board members, the board voted to approve the variance request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific details of those conditions were not detailed in the available information. This approval allows Do and Ruzic to proceed with their construction plans for both the home addition and detached garage with the reduced setback requirements, provided they comply with any conditions attached to the variance approval. ## Jeremy Young's appeal against the issuance of a building permit [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-19-00074, Jeremy Young's appeal against the issuance of a building permit for a garage and laundry facility. Young argued that the permit should not have been issued because it would expand a non-conforming use. Key speakers during the discussion included Jeremy Young, the appellant, and Amy Clark. Young presented his case that the building permit was improperly issued, contending that the proposed garage and laundry facility would constitute an expansion of an existing non-conforming use, which would violate local zoning regulations. The board reviewed the circumstances surrounding the permit issuance and evaluated Young's arguments regarding the non-conforming use designation. After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the board determined that Young's appeal had merit. The board approved the appeal, finding that the original building permit issuance was in error. This decision effectively overturned the previously issued permit for the garage and laundry facility, supporting Young's position that the project would improperly expand a non-conforming use in violation of zoning requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of the minutes from the September 9, 2019 meeting - **PLN-BOA-19-00071** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of James McGee's request for a conditional use permit to operate a junk yard - **PLN-BOA-19-00073** — passed (6-1): Approval of Ralph & DK Templeton's request for a variance and administrative appeal - **PLN-BOA-19-00067** — passed (7-0): Approval of Boone Contracting, LLC's request for variances to increase the allowable height of a fence - **PLN-BOA-19-00063** — passed (7-0): Approval of Luftrade, LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an extended stay hotel - **PLN-BOA-19-00070** — passed (6-0): Approval of Martine's Pastries' request for a conditional use permit for a parking lot - **PLN-BOA-19-00060** — passed (5-2): Approval of Fayette County Local Development Corporation's request for variances to reduce side yard setbacks - **PLN-BOA-19-00061** — passed (6-1): Approval of Fayette County Local Development Corporation's request for a variance to decrease parking spaces - **PLN-BOA-19-00072** — failed (0-7): Disapproval of Viktor Chepak's request for a variance to reduce setback for additional paved parking - **PLN-BOA-19-00068** — passed (4-3): Approval of Darci and Colby Tipton's request for a variance to reduce side yard for a new garage - **PLN-BOA-19-00069** — passed (7-0): Approval of Kiet Do and Ana Ruzic's request for variances for an addition and detached garage - **PLN-BOA-19-00074** — passed (5-2): Approval of Jeremy Young's appeal against the issuance of a building permit --- ## Full transcript I'm the same boy I used to be It's getting late, have you seen my mates? I tell me when the boys get young It's seven o'clock and I wanna rock Wanna get a belly full of beer My old man's a drunk, I found a battle full of monkeys And my old lady, she don't care My sister looks cute in her braises and boots A handful of grease in her hair Oh, don't give us none of your abbreviations We'll hide it with your distal plan Oh, Saturday nights all fight for fighting Yeah, let a latch on in Yeah, I'm out of time And the diesel train Gonna set the stands alive Saturday night's the night I like Saturday night's alright Alright, alright Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Well, the pack with a tight end here Hi, I'm Kathy Ploman. I am the council member for the 12th District. And the 12th District has so many horse farms out in it. And so I'm very, very excited to be able to represent. I have Ann Hardy with me today. And Ann is the executive director of Horse Country. And I'm going to let you tell us a little bit about Horse Country. How did it come to be? And what's it all about? Well, thank you for having me. We're excited to be able to share with our community about what we're trying to do. Visit Horse Country is a not-for-profit organization that was developed by the farms, many of them here in Fayette County, to open up and really invite the community and the leisure travelers that come here to come in and experience what our thoroughbred and horse culture is. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to gavel in the meeting of the Board of Adjustment for October 14, 2009. Some items. First, if you have your cell phone, go ahead and turn that on silent or off so it doesn't ring during the hearing. For those of you who are here and will be speaking, which means if you plan on coming to the podium, I will square you in. Generally, the order is staff gives a report, then applicant, then opposition, and then rebuttal, depending on whether the matter is here to be heard, that is opposition is here, or the staff has recommended disapproval. Do not approach us or speak unless you're recognized by someone on the board. Are there any letters of support today for any matters so we can mark those? We have a couple of letters for item number one. I believe one is in support and there are three in opposition. All right. item number seven we have received one letter okay item number one under conditional use we have two letters of support number seven was I believe opposition yes opposition item number two under conditional uses we have a letter of support and item number one under administrative reviews we have received a couple of letters of opposition or well in support of the sorry in support of the appeal thanks honor so now what I'll do is I will swear in actually no first we'll do approval of the minutes from the September 9th, 2009. Those were circulated by staff. Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review? Does anyone have any requested changes? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the minutes. So moved. So we have a first by Mr. Glover, second by Ms. Whitman. Thank you. quicker. Well, in the meantime, is there any discussion on the motion? Because I will call to a vote. All right. Motion's approved. The next item we will have is if you plan on speaking to the board today, I will go ahead and swear you in. So if you could stand for me and raise your right hand. I'm waiting for one couple to decide. There he is. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. The next thing I'm going to do is I'm going to sound the agenda. This is all the cases that are currently on our agenda for today. What I'll do is I will name the case, ask if the applicant is present. I will then ask if there is any opposition to the application. If there is, I would request that maybe if you guys have not previously spoken, take an opportunity, go into the hallway, see if you can work out your differences. Then once we get through the whole docket, what we'll do is we will call the uncontested matters first, and then we will call in order, and then we will call the contested matters, which would be either matters in which staff recommended disapproval or which there is opposition here today. So the first matter is PLM BOA 19 dash 60 Fayette County Local Development Corporation. And it looks like you have two cases. So the first one is case number 60 related to Florence Avenue is applicant present. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition to this case? Thank you. I've got one person. Do you think it behooves you guys to discuss the matter before the hearing? It doesn't hurt. I would suggest you guys take a couple minutes to talk about it. But before you leave, sir, since you're the second case also, I've got PLM BOA 19-61 Fayette County Local Development Corporation regarding 364 Corral Street. Is an applicant present? Is there anyone here who wants to talk about that case? He does also. So, okay. So I'll let you guys go in the hallway and discuss, and then we'll see if you guys hopefully can work it out. The third case is PLN BOA 19-72, Victor Chepak, regarding 2804 Satin Leaf Park. Is the applicant present? All right. Is there anyone who wants to speak on behalf of this matter? All right, you'll be the first case when I call it. Oh, I'm sorry, never mind. It's for disapproval from the staff, so you also be heard. So sit tight, you'll be the second heard case. The next item is number 4, PLM BOA 1973, Ralph and DK Templeton. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. This is regarding 523 Fairfield Drive. Is anyone here to speak on this today? You will be the first case not to be heard. The next item is number 5, PLMBOA 1967, Boone Contracting, LLC, regarding a number of properties on Village Drive, Cummins Court, and Daniel Court. Is the applicant present? All right. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on behalf of this case? This is the Boone contracting case. Okay. The next item is number 6, PLNBOA 19-68, Darcy and Cobalt Tipton. Applicant present? Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this matter? This is regarding 3840Y square. Thank you, sir. Then we'll have this one. Do you guys want to talk in the hallway? Is it worth your time you think? Yeah, I recommend take a few minutes, see if you guys can work it out. The next item is PLMBOA 19-69. Kayat Doe and Anna Ruzik. Applicant present? No, but I'm here on the letter. Okay. And this is regarding 136 McDowell Road. We do have one letter. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on that? Okay. I see we have one. Do you think you guys could maybe work this out in the hallway? Nope. Cash says no. All right. We'll have this one heard. Now we're at the conditional use appeals. And the first case is PLMBOA 19-63, Left Trade, regarding 402 South Broadway. Applicant present? Thank you, sir. Anyone here on behalf of that case? We do have some letters, which we'll look at before, but we'll have this one not to be heard. The second one is PLM BOA 19-70 Martins Pastries at East 3rd Street. Applicant present? Okay. Is there anyone here to be heard on this case? All right, hearing no one. We have one letter, but we'll have this one to not be heard. the last um one is and i totally forgot about this i should have asked if anyone wanted to withdraw our postponements plmboa 19-71 james mcgee regarding lyle 130 lyle industrial road and we have a recommendation of postponement from the staff is the applicant present Maybe they saw the docket. Yeah, maybe they thought it was going to be postponed. Okay. Well, what I'll do is we'll address this one before we start calling the cases. Chairman, if there's people here by chance, we'd hate to have them sit around for a long time. Okay. Yeah, what I was going to do, as soon as I call through the docket, I will address this case right off the bat. That way they don't wait around. The next item is for administrative reviews, and that is PLM BOA 19-74, Jeremy Young. Applicant is present. This one's for disapproval, so it will be heard. Is there anyone here on behalf of this matter? No? Okay. And I believe I've taken care of them all. So what I'd like to do is address PLMBOA 19-71, James McGee's request for a conditional use permit to operate a junkyard in heavy industrial zone at 130 Lyle Industrial Road. Staff has recommended postponement. Is the applicant present? Okay. Well, we have two ladies and gentlemen who would like to come up, so come up if you wouldn't mind. and I'm assuming you're here in opposition? Correct. Okay. Would you have an objection to passing this to next month because the applicant is not here? Do we have an idea? Are they going to withdraw or is this one that you think it's going to get worked out? I've not heard anything from the applicant. I would expect that they would want to move forward. You would? Yes. Okay. But I have not heard anything from them. Would you have an objection for this being heard at our meeting on November 11th, 2019, at 1.30 p.m.? On November 11th, yes. Yes, ma'am. It's Veterans Day, and we represent the veterans of foreign wars that this property abuts to. Yeah, that makes sense. Oops, that's wrong. Let's see here. We are on December 9th is our, the next one. Mr. Marks, you have something to say? Well, if we can't work out a time to postpone it to, I want to point out this is an existing use, so we don't want to drag it out too long. In some cases, you'll take the testimony. Okay. That's kind of a last option. Well, I guess I'll put it to the board. You guys think we should go ahead and let them speak to this, and then we can have the case heard next week? Legal, is that an issue with you guys? Next month, I mean? Well, I mean, you would have to continue it, and to the degree the people that are here today would have any comment to anything that they say that they don't hear today, they wouldn't be able to address that. So, I mean, I'm not sure that would... Okay. Well, Mr. Marks, would you give us a flavor on what the applicant has requested? Yeah, that's on... The applicant has currently been operating this business since around 2015, I believe, or it may be a little bit longer. I think it's 2010, actually. so what he does there is he has dumpsters that he rents out to clients who take them to their site or they're dropped off on their site and they typically will discard materials from demolition type activities into these dumpsters and then they are returned to his property where metal is sorted out and then other types of materials are taken from that site to another location to be discarded staff has a number of concerns about the environmental impacts on this site and we are working with some other divisions to try to get a little bit more feedback on what types of conditions would be necessary if this were to be approved and whether or not they're in compliance with some other issues at the state and local level so that's that's kind of where we are with our postponement since the applicant has been operating this business for a number of years I do anticipate that that he will hopefully get back to us with some more information and we'll certainly want to keep this application going so granted he's not here today I don't know if he saw the postponement recommendation thought that meant he didn't have to come but in our staff report we did address several items that we would like him to address and i have not received any response from him yet okay well given they can't yes because of the veterans holiday so that's what i said well mr marks had mentioned that maybe we should try to have it heard next month but i'm inclined to unless there's strong objection from the staff i'm inclined to just postpone it until the december okay would you be able to make it on the december hearing which would be the ninth absolutely and that will give us time to compile some more um support perfect opposition that sounds great so what i'll do then is um since applicant is not here mr chair there are i think two other parties in the audience that are here in opposition i don't know if oh my gosh okay if anyone is here on the jimmy key case please stand up so I know how many people are here. All right. Well, no one stood up before except for this fine couple in the front. So I guess then, ma'am, thank you very much. Thank you. Well, don't go yet because we've got to see what everyone else wants to say. So is anyone here like to speak against postponing this to December 9th? Are you guys fine to postpone the hearing for two months? Okay, we'll do that. We'll get to that. Okay. Everyone good with that? Okay. So it sounds like people here in opposition are fine. Howard, do you want to say something? Okay. So it sounds like everyone in the audience who took time out of your busy schedules to come down here today to oppose this application is okay with us postponing to the 9th. Unless I hear any objections from anyone in the board, then I would entertain a motion to postpone this application to our meeting on December 9th at 1.30 p.m. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone the PLN of BOA 19-71, James McGee, requesting a conditional use permit to operate a junkyard in a heavy industrial I-2 zone at 130 Lyle Industrial Avenue until December the 9th. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? If not, I'll call the vote. Motion is approved. We will see all you guys on December 9th. Hopefully have a good Halloween, Veterans Day, and Thanksgiving. me. Hopefully the other cases will go more smoothly since that's a postponement and should be pretty easy. I am rusty. It's been a couple months. Okay, so I'm going to go and I'm going to call up cases now in which there was nobody here in opposition and staff had recommended approval. And the first such case is PLN VOA 19-73 Ralph and DK Templeton regarding 523 Fairfield Drive. Come on up, sir. Please state your name for the record. My name is Shane Humphries. Shane what? Shane Humphries. Okay. And what company are you with? I'm with Young Enterprise. And are you the agent of the owners? I'm the contractor. Okay. Are you authorized to speak on their behalf today? Yes, sir. Okay. The staff has recommended approval based upon three conditions. Have you and your client reviewed those conditions? They're the ones in the report? Yes. Okay. And your client agreed to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there any questions from anyone from the board for Mr. Humphries? well i don't know if it was a question for mr humphries and maybe you can answer for the sellers i did go by the property and um i did think that was a significant amount of outside additional buildings for that size house so what are the plans it said it was just wooden yes it's just a wooden open wall carport she's an elderly woman and the husband passed away and she kept his truck in a garage so she has no place to park her car under uh out of the weather she just wants something where she can come from her back porch there and be out of the weather the other two um buildings that were back there are they connected yeah they're connected so this one won't be connected the first one is the garage that you pull in and the the back piece is just storage or i don't know what's in it okay okay are they both enclosed the two existing structures and there will be looks like four feet between the existing structures and the carport is that the plan they'll be four feet from the wall two feet from the roof line okay uh the staff staff report or just the project description in the staff report says the property is is about mid-block but the but the drawing appears to show south great drive right next to the property so i'm i don't know whether i don't know which is right or whether i'm uh not looking at the right piece of property the house is about mid-block it's not adjacent to southgate it's not next to southgate no okay And again, I don't know if it's a question, but it's still a concern for me that they're already over the existing accessory structure amount at 952 square feet. and then you know because the the amount was what seven i forget 792 or 769 is the allowable amount so the two buildings that are there are already 952 square feet and then this would be adding more to that to that 1500 square foot house and i just feel like we've heard other cases there weren't even this out of proportion that we did not approve. Autumn, do you want to speak to the staff's reasoning in accepting this plan versus maybe some other ones we have heard in the past? The fact that it is an open and unenclosed carport was something that we took into consideration. That does still count towards the square footage. Obviously, they wouldn't be asking for the variance. but that is something that we took into account and did add the condition that it could never be enclosed. And the applicant's justification that it was for the homeowner who did have some mobility issues to be able to get in and out of her vehicle was something that we took into account as well. It is a little bit concerning that the existing structures are already over the maximum that they would be allowed to have, but we ultimately landed on an approval of this application it is also maybe worth noting that if the carport were all the way behind the house it would only have an 18 inch setback requirement but since it is closer that's where that that portion of the variance comes in and because it does it is in between the house and the side lot line but if it were all all the way behind we would still need the additional square correct yes I have any more questions for Mr. Humphreys or for the staff? Okay. Well, Mr. Humphreys, you'll take a seat. And at this point, we can do a testimony, but if you guys have any questions or want to discuss, we can continue or we can entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN VOA 19-73, Ralph and D.K. Templeton's request for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 3 1⁄2 feet, and an administrative appeal to increase the total allowable square footage of accessory structures from 769 feet to 1,192 square feet in order to construct a new 240-square-foot carport in a single-family residential R1C zone at 523 Fairfield Drive for the reasons recommended by staff in the staff report and subject to the three conditions listed. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any comments before we vote? Hearing none, I'll call it for a vote. The application is approved. Good luck with your project. The next item on our agenda without any opposition is PLNBOA 19-67, Boone Contracting LLC's request related to 1262, 1274, and 1302 Village Drive, 2051 Cummins Court, and 2048 Daniel Court. is the applicant present okay please come forward sir on the staff has recommended approval of your application and it is conditioned on one condition first off sorry say your name for the record John Latta and And are you with the owner or contractor? Yes, we're the general contractor. Okay. And you have authority to bind the owner in these discussions? Yes, we do. So they've requested or they have recommended approval based upon one condition. Have you and your client seen that condition? Obtaining the permit, yes. Yes. And you're agreeable to abide by that? Yes, I do. Okay, thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant? Give us a second. I think we have a couple of guys pulling up the aerials to get a better shot. I have a question for the applicant. Why were the fences 4 feet 10 inches? The subcontractor built them to that height to match the neighboring fence. Where are the neighboring fences? It is called Thoroughbred Apartments, right next door. It's the exact same height. Thank you. It looks like from your application, You're not enclosing the entire property, just the front? Correct. And it's not completely enclosed. Each segment of the fence is separated, so there's a lot of open area. I forget. What kind of fence is going up? I don't recall. It's an equestrian horse fence, so four planks. Oh, four-plank fence? See-through. So you would consider that more decorative than a safety factor? I'm sorry? More decorative effect rather than guarding the property. Correct, it attracts curb appeal but also keeps pedestrians in and out to an extent. Are you guys going to fill that pool in or leave the tarp? Which of the two? The one on the area looks like it's a tart full of water. We filled one in. The other one is at the front, I believe, is vacant. And that's on the property. We're the general contractors. Anyone else have questions? Anything staff wants to add? All right. Thank you, sir. You want to have a seat? Thank you. I guess we'll close it. And if you guys want to have any comments or discussions, or we can move for a motion. I move for approval for PLN BOA 19-67 Boone Contracting LLC's request for variances to increase the allowable height of a fence located within a front yard from 4 feet to 4 feet 10 inches in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 1262-1274 and 1302 Village Drive, 2051 Cummins Court, and 2048 Daniel Court. Thank you. I second the motion. Okay. Any discussions on the motion? Hearing none, I'll call a vote. Application is approved. Good luck with your project. The next item I'm going to call is for a conditional use appeal. It's PLMBOA 1963, Luftrade, regarding 402 South Broadway. Is applicant present? Thank you, sir. Come on up real fast. And we have some letters that we need to look at. So what we'll do is while we're looking at letters, I'll get a few administrative things out of the way. Please state your name for the record. Brian Luftman. And Mr. Luftman, I'm assuming you are the owner of the LLC? Yes, sole owner. Okay. the staff has recommended approval today it's based upon you four conditions have you read those conditions i have and i will comply with those all right thank you sir um okay are both these for support autumn okay well while we're looking at the letters and emails and support of the applicant. Anyone from the board want to ask any questions? I must admit I'm a little confused by the 50 percent. And if you could explain that to me, And I think I understand, but it would be very helpful if you could explain that to me. I did not come up with the 50%, but that is part of the extended stay hotel guidelines, so to speak. And so thus I will have. I would say, Mr. Liffman, maybe if you just explain what you're doing with the project, and then we'll back into the 50%. Does that help, Mr. Clark? Okay. Fair. the project is to cater to larger groups who are coming in for week-long stays or you know extended periods of time it's not going to be a seven room high turnover hotel that's in no case the what we want to achieve there and so thus we want to rent the place hopefully as one unit or maybe two units for an ex for a week-long stay we're not trying to have a whole lot of turnover so that's the real basis for the group or for the group VRBO if you will or or long-term vacation rental, if that makes sense. So the 50% is just something that Autumn and the staff recommended, and I'm more than willing to comply with that because essentially we don't want to rent the place. If someone's coming in for a weekend, we're not going to try to piece it in and rent it during Monday, Tuesday as well. We're just going to let it have the weekly turnover and let them rent it for a week. So four units have to be rented for a week or more. Is that correct? Correct. Staff, is that correct? Is that the idea? That is correct. And truly, we're hoping to rent the thing as one unit more often than not. Well, I applaud you taking a building that has sat there for many years and having the vision and the ability to do something with it. Thanks. It's either fun or stupid or both. We'll see. Any other questions? Well, in that case, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the application of PLN BOA 19-63, The Luftrade requesting a conditional use permit for an extended stay hotel in the historic overlaid neighborhood business zones at 402 South Broadway, based on the staff recommendation and subject to the four conditions listed. Second. Thank you, gentlemen. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call a vote. Your application is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, so it looks like we are at our last case to be called that does not have any opposition, and that is Martins Pastry, PLN VOA 19-70, regarding a conditional use permit at 403 East 3rd Street. The applicant would come forward, please. Yes. Did you get the sheet from staff? Okay. They have one in the office. Hello. Hi. Would you please state your names for the record? I am Martine Holzman and I own Martine's Pastries. Jim Holzman, co-owner of Martine's Pastries. Thank you. Welcome. Those letters, are they all in support? We have one letter of support. Okay. So we're going to pass this letter of support. And while we are doing that, the staff has recommended approval today. Thank you. It is based upon five conditions. Have you read those? Yes. And you agree to abide by those conditions? Thank you. They both say yes. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? We did have a quick question. And are we leaving the house or are you removing the house? We are. Yes. You are leaving the house? The house is left, yeah. What are you intending to do with it? We rent it. Oh, okay. Still keep it as a residential property? Yeah. Okay. I was just curious. Yep. And did you bring any samples? I should have known. The November 11th meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Well, do we want to wait a couple minutes to let you guys look at the aerials or we want some discussion? Are we ready to move for a motion? All right, sounds like we're ready to move. Yeah. I move for approval for PLN BOA 19-70, Martin's Pastries request for a conditional use permit for a parking lot to provide parking for an existing nonconforming use within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 408 East 3rd Street based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the five listed conditions. Second. All right, we have a first and a second. Do we have any discussion? Hearing none, then I'll call the vote. Your application is approved. Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Now we are to the cases that are to be heard. Before I call those cases in order, some of you went out into the hallway. were there any, I guess, agreements reached where opposition will be withdrawn? All right. So the first two cases, it looks like we have opposition withdrawn. Any other ones? Okay. In that case, that works out perfect. You're going to be the first one called anyway, so I'll call you back up here. So this is going to be for PLNBOA 19-60 Fayette County Local Development Corporation. We do have a couple letters. Are any of those in opposition? Yes. Okay. So what we'll do, sir, is... Oh, I think one of your letters was in here. Do you want to withdraw that? Okay, what we'll do then, while we're doing these letters, sir, why don't you come on up for me, the applicant, and we'll put your name on the record. I'll have you come up, and then we'll come with the understanding of what he's going to do. or you can at least say yes, that's what he's agreed to. Sir, please state your name for the record. Derek Thomas. Mr. Thomas, are you employed by or otherwise an agent of Fayette County Local Development Corporation? Yes, sir. Okay. And we're looking at some letters right now. The staff has recommended approval of your application at 754 and 756 Florence Avenue. and let me ask staff real fast are these closely enough that i should just have both cases done simultaneously or should i break them out 754 and 756 are one application okay the corral street is is a separate okay so we'll do this we'll handle them one at a time so this is on the florence avenue the staff has recommended approval they based that approval on two conditions have you seen those conditions no i haven't okay they should have been with the notice that you received in the in the mail telling you about the hearing effects yeah it was emailed um they're real short so look at those and then also i think they're identical for the next so look at those autumn we'll get those for you while we're looking at these okay conditions on so those were the two conditions there I don't know how that happened. Probably not. People that oppose it. Yeah. All right, here's another copy. If you want to hold on to that. Got them down there. Yeah. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Here's this. I'm going to ask a couple questions. related to that one so I can get that one back oh this is a duplicate one Okay. Sir, and I apologize. I did not write down your last name. Thomas. Thomas, okay. Let me ask you, is the, at least for this first application, is not 100% clear? Is the plan to build two duplexes and have a shared driveway with parking? Our issue now has this been changed? We're doing a parking in front of the building now. That may be an issue because front yard parking is prohibited in the infill and redevelopment area. So you can't have any parking in your 20-foot required front yard. So I would venture that that may not be feasible. all right well maybe opposition's back on but it doesn't matter you'd be in this case anyways um but yeah so the the way i'm envisioning what you're describing since not i don't think there's a drawing that i saw in here will be you should have a drawing it does not show the actual structure um that's what i'm saying i mean this is it's two rectangles yeah it's yeah yeah um But I would, if you would not mind, do you have a blank piece of paper that you can kind of sketch out what you think this will look like? Because I think I envisioned it correctly. Because I have to be honest with you. What you were saying was correct. You have two places, a shared driveway, the four parked places behind it. You're going to file an easement of record. That will create that. Yeah, I mean. They're going to load that up on the screen. This is what you have. You see the 20-foot building line there. Those two rectangles that are drawn represent the potential envelope that the duplexes would be in, with the area in between the two would be your driveway, going back to the parking in the rear. so how many how many parking places are you planning to build in the back behind these two buildings it'll be eight total i have two spots per duplex two per unit okay total four units eight park i can add i have to make sure yeah i'm getting testimony from the applicant um this would it would have been helpful i think for the board to have seen this drawing before this is the drawing that you have not the drawing that i have what drawing do you have drawing that i have doesn't show a driveway and it doesn't show any parking places that's correct we have this drawing oh Oh, let me hand this out. I have some extra copies. So the drawing that's up on the screen, Mr. Thomas, does it show the footprint of the buildings as well? The checkered line would be the footprint of the building. We'll have to move the side yards in. The front line stays the same. And then the next line up would be the back of the building. The second hash going across the back would be the back of the building. Okay. The front would be at the 20-foot building line would be the front part of the building. Right. I think I understand where the front line is. I just wasn't sure where the back line was going to be. It's the second hash mark up. So the one, the hash mark closer to the parking places? No, the one close to the parking space is the end of the parking spot. It goes up, driveway goes up and turns this way. The next line down would be the back of the house. So it would be like a 20 foot between the back of the house and the back of the driveway. 20 foot green space. It's a green space right there. Okay, I think I understand. Is the parking going to be paved? Yes, sir. I think that's the reason for the concern that we had in one or two of the letters about water runoff. How is this property sloped? It all slopes towards, that part slopes towards the front, towards the street. Towards the front street? Yes, sir. Towards Florence Avenue? Yes, sir. Now, if building inspection tells us to put down the pavers, the square pavers, we're going to do that also. But whatever they said we had to do, we'd do what they told us to do. either concrete or the papers, which are what they said do. Okay, you did notice there are two conditions which support the staff's recommendation of approval. The second condition is that you get permits and approvals from the building inspection. Do you understand that? They're my next step from leaving here. Right. Yes, sir. I got a question for staff because condition two is construction shall be in accordance with submitted application materials and site plan. Do we need to make the record clear that this is the site plan and not the one that was provided to us? We can, yes. We can say that it was the one. I'm not really sure what happened with that. I guess what was uploaded to Acela was different than the printed versions that we received that you just received now. But obviously this is not a complete plan that would be approved by building inspection. So it will still be another plan, but showing the same information, if that makes sense. I don't know. And today all we're doing is, are we asking for a variance for both sides of the duplex? Correct, both sides. Both sides of the duplex. Well, there are two duplexes. Right, the outermost two sides. Okay, so that being the normal five feet, I mean six feet. correct okay and then mr thomas i just had a question of all the other duplexes you build in this area what what ones how many do you have uh parking in the rear uh just we just did one ash street did three on ash street and there's uh the first duplex is parking on the sides and the mix next to has the parking in the back did you need a conditional use for that no because the we had just bring the parking down to 3 600 square feet and that was a building space to recommend they told us to park might only be 300 square feet okay we had a backyard that was from the back of the house to the back fence was 250 feet they still might just make that 3600 square feet did you say there was a fence behind the property I think I think it wouldn't fence back there it's we can hear from it's overgrown so you can't really tell us back there mr weissmuller you want to come to the podium yeah yes you want to sit down for a second we'll have We have Jim McKenzie. Oh, sorry. You look like somebody else. Okay. Well, out in the hallway, we talked about that. Plan's down there on that. And if you look at 744 on that duplex, that's a duplex right on 744. On that property, the parking lot is in front and looks very fine. Our concern is, and I went down there over the weekend and got a petition from a bunch of people, and that was a story in itself. Before I can get to the end of the petition, I had a big fistfight break out right on my property, right on the front porch. They had to stop after that. I said, okay, I'm done with the petition for right now. But I was thinking if we can move those, like we were talking about in the hallway, if he moves those parking lots back, That way if Metro comes down and they're monitoring, if they come down and monitor the street, when you have the parking in front, they can see what's going on. Right now, especially in my duplexes, you've got a single woman back there. You're asking a single lady to go back in the very back to pick up her car. And if you go down there at 8 o'clock at night tonight, it is not a, we're not in Hamburg and we're not in Metathorpe. It's a little rougher neighborhood. and it's I wouldn't even walk back there so if we could push the parking lot in front that makes it very safe for everybody I think well even though the 744 has parking in the front that is on me we could do it today about that autumn that is correct moving the the building back and having your parking in the front would require a whole different set of variances one to eliminate the front yard in order to allow that parking there in the first place and then you would maybe also run into issues with your rear yard setback which is 10 feet or 20 percent of the lot depth whichever is greater I'm not sure exactly what that would be for this site but I would guess that that could also cause an issue so you would likely be looking at returning to this board again for for those types of variances so can I speak real quick those uh the two places in the back is owned by another landlord that I know and I talked to him about the same situation and he was all against those back parking lots too. He owns those houses in the back that backs up to that. So we've all talked about all the landlords down there talked about it. I talked to all the residents back there and I think that one letter with a lady that lives right across the street when I came down I was talking to her about she goes yeah thank you for coming down she didn't know how to respond to that because you know she didn't know how to respond. That letter what she wrote on there very summed it up as a safety measure back there. I'm not sure what it would take to do to push that back, but I would think everybody in that area, including the landlords behind there, will be more than happy to create a variance. I've created more of a variance on my side if we could push that back there because that is that's a huge safety issue. There's no there's no way you can put something back there and not unless you have a guard back there 24-7, you're going to have major problems back there. Well I assume there are going to be entrances in the back of these duplexes. We got them, there's fences all around the back that keeps people basically from back. If you look on the other side of my duplex right there, 758, that's the neighborhood store. There's a sidewalk that comes up, not a sidewalk, it's a path that everybody breaks through from Roosevelt which is a looped neighborhood back there. It's a closed off neighborhood. They all walk from that side to the store side. But as As far as mine right there, 758, and if he puts the fence up in the back where it's there right now, and especially on the other side of 744 there, nobody will be going back there other than the residences, the people that are supposed to be there right now. But with that parking lot back there, it's the Wild West back there. There's not going to be no, there's no way you can monitor that. You can put up all the cameras. We talked about in the hallway. You can put up a camera all day long. You just get to see the action then. That's not going to say anything. Are you telling us that they shouldn't put a parking lot in the back of these proposed houses because there's crime in the area and that that's a safety issue? Is that what I understand you're saying? That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a huge – you can see that. That's where that one gentleman was just murdered a couple weekends ago, right down the street from right there. It's a very active neighborhood, we say. It's a very active neighborhood. And you put that in the back, when you put those parking lots in the back, the lady that's right across the street, that one letter that I proposed that I sent over to Autumn, she summed it up better than I could. It's going to be very toxic. So what do we have to do to move those duplexes back and put the parking lot in the front so when you can drive down and see what's going on? I can't imagine having a single woman or a guy even going back in the back and trying to pick up their car in the back of those duplexes. When I was a renter and my car was in the back, that's where I always got my car broke into. And I was over in a better neighborhood. Well, I would just like to say this is one of many projects I've seen Fayette County Development Corps doing in conjunction with Urban League. And I think their goal is the opposite. you know to create these new um residents and nice new places for people to live so i think they're trying to accomplish the opposite thing there and you know actually bringing something positive or or nicer places to the area and just like they did on ash street i mean they've done a very nice job of it they'll own the properties they'll continue to own the property so i'm just sort of like I mean, I get it, I get what you're saying. But to prevent them from doing something to actually bring something better or better properties to the neighborhood would seem to be counterproductive. We're all for the properties, just that parking lot in the front. Let me add to that, I agree with that. It bothers me somewhat that we have to change the rules about how we develop property by where it happens to be in the city. And that in itself bothers me. And so I would say I really understand what you're saying. At the same time, I'm not sure that's adequate reason to say, well, we can't have any parking in the back because there might be a drug deal going on back there. I just don't see that as a legitimate reason to do that. I would say if I was one street over on Brethet, the other side of the street, on the very far side, maybe not so much of a problem, but on Florence, it's a problem. That's where everybody hangs out over there. And nobody over there, and all the landlords, nobody's selling. No matter what you, you know, we want to bring up the property, nobody's selling, and they're not changing the properties around. It is what it is over there. I just think it's a very toxic thing to have a parking lot in the back. And if you drive down there tonight at 8 o'clock, just check out the night. You almost have to go down there to see it. I never realized it myself until I became a landlord down there. I was like, ooh, this is a little bit different than I thought it was going to be. It's very tough to be in the back. It's hard to monitor. It's hard on a lot of other things, too, I can bring up, but it's just very difficult. I think those parking lots being in the front where you can drive by, see what's going on, and everybody hangs out in the front already, that's what they do and that's what they're used to. And that's from the residences that are telling me that. Not even my own stuff. You see the letters that I got in the petition. I put the petition on it. Before I even got it out of my mouth, they were saying it was a bad idea to put a parking lot in the back. They brought that up to me. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie. Thank you. I'm going to have Mr. Thomas come back up, answer some questions. I've got a few questions for you. First question is, will there be rear entrances on these units so the people that live in the units will exit their back doors into the parking lot? Yes, sir. Okay. And then do you guys plan on putting any new fencing up as part of this construction? Yes, sir. What kind of fence are you going to put up and where? Wood privacy fence down the whole back and up most of the sides. So you're going to put up a six-foot privacy fence? Yes, sir. Okay. now to change not to change but said i got to follow building inspection rules anyway we would try to move the house back if we had the room they say we can have the room back here as far as a green space back there that allows us to do it i understand what he's saying you know i got house on corral street uh chester streets are all the same issue if we can move the houses back so there's no issue with that back there haunting and you know dope selling back there If business space allows us to do it, I will do that, just to accommodate the neighborhood and keep the neighborhood safer. That's not a big issue. If they don't allow us to put it back there, they'll have to leave it like it is. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I don't know how a smaller space in the back would make it safer. Well, there's no parking back here, no cars back there, sitting in cars, sitting back here doing the wrong thing back there. Put the parking in the front. Yeah, put the parking in the front. Well, that's a totally different back up car. We can't decide that today. Well, I only need to read the variances because moving the house back would be a part of, like the paperwork said, follow building inspection rules and codes to make it compliant. Yeah, but staff's already said if you try to put the parking in the front. That's in front of the building line. Yeah. I can go behind the building line if I can move the house back and accommodate the backyards as far as how much the car I have to have. If I don't have enough backyard, I can't do it. If I have enough backyard to move the house back, I'll put the parking lot behind the building line. What about that, Autumn? So you would have to meet the rear yard setback requirement, which is 10 feet or 20% of the lot depth, whichever is greater. I'm not sure in this situation how deep this lot is off the top of my head. So you would have to meet that, and you would have to be able to fit all of your parking behind that 20-foot building line. So from the front lot line back 20 feet would be your yard. And then if you were able to make it work to fit parking and then your structure and then still have your rear yard, then that would be approvable by building inspection. I would anticipate that that would limit you on, you know, if you want buildings of this size, I would guess that it will be a tight fit to do that. But it may be possible. I don't know if you've played around with that option at all yet. Yes, sir. Is there anything, if Mr. Thomas wanted to do that, what he's proposing to do, move the building back on the property, not encroach on the backyard setback, but in order to accommodate parking in the front of the building, if we approve this application as it stands right now, is the application flexible enough to allow him to do that? If we were to, the approval would be based on this site plan, so it would be a judgment call of whether or not the new application was substantially similar. similar to the intent of this. He would probably not even need this side yard setback if he's not going to have the driveway in between the two structures, then that might not even be necessary. I don't know. Yeah, I was just going to bring that back to what our actual variance is for. You know, we're talking a lot about the parking, but it's really for the side yard. He wants to reduce it from six to five, and we could approve such a variance, and they could figure out how to lay out the rest, I would imagine. I think, but I want the applicant to have clear guidance to know what it is we're approving. So we're not surprised. So building inspection is not surprised. So planning and zoning is not surprised. That's why I asked the question, is this application sufficiently tight enough to allow him to do it, but sufficiently flexible for him to move the buildings back? I don't know the answer to that question. The application will not affect the house going straight back either way. The side yards to be the same set back. That wouldn't change the side yards if the house moved back. Well, if you don't need the driveway between the two buildings, then the buildings can be moved closer together. Right. And then you don't need the side yard variance. And so there's no reason for this application. There would be nothing to approve, actually. There would be nothing to approve. Nothing for us to approve. So in that case. I don't know, because I can't tell what the sites. what the side yards are in between the buildings from what we have. That's true. I think they do say six feet, so that would, if they were to come any closer. We may have a side yard issue, no matter what, with the size of the building. Well, in the drawing in the application, how wide is the proposed shared driveway? I can't tell. Twelve feet. Twelve feet. Twelve feet. So it's six feet on either side, so the variance would still. So if it were a 10-foot walkway instead, then you wouldn't need the two one-foot variances. Well, you would still have the setback. It would be a setback from that center property line rather than from the two outside edges. It is currently at its setback. So if it were to be a 10-foot driveway, then the two duplexes would be five foot each from that center line. Yeah. So that's not what we're... Or he could re-dead the property into a single lot. That would probably be another question. I think the question becomes, Autumn, do you think we need to continue this until next month and have maybe a different plan before us, or do you think that given what we've discussed? I think it depends on if the applicant were to say that they wanted to potentially move the two duplexes towards the rear and have the parking in the front, and they were able to do that without requiring a variance in the front or rear yards, then I think that the variance that you could potentially approve today, we could tweak the condition number one to say the site plan that was submitted or as amended to move the structures towards the back. we could make that work so that you could go ahead and approve that today and they would not have to come back but without knowing exactly how things will fit on the site and they may need a front yard or rear yard variance. I just don't like that. If that were the case they would have to re-notify anyway but it wouldn't be an entirely new application but they would have to send out the letters and all of that again. So it's kind of hard to say. Go ahead. No, I would just want to get back to the, their application is for the rear parking. And the variance is required because of that. We're spending a lot of time on amending it based on what we just talked about with the crime and the other things that may or may not happen. But those things, like Mr. Clark said, are not the things that we generally are making the decision on. We're making the decision on the ordinance, the things that are available here, the variances that we're allowed to do. So I think we're opening up and getting on track to say, hey, is there something better that he could do for reasons that aren't things we normally look at? In other words, if we approve this application, within the confines of the approved application, could he make adjustments himself, Mr. Thomas himself, to put parking in the front? And I understood you to say that as long as it complied, if the front parking complied with the 20-foot setback from Florence Street, then he could. Correct. Again, I think we could maybe tweak that condition, number one, to just make it a little bit broader, just so it's not so contingent upon this site plan in order and say that they could shift back, because it sounds like they're going to need the side yard setback either way. And then that would be an option to get them moving forward. And if they're able to make it work with the other setbacks, then they would be able to go ahead and get their building permit and get started. And if they do happen to find that they would need another variance, then they could always file another application. Mr. Marksick, could you guys draft up something real quick and throw it on the board? Yeah, let's take a two-minute recess while they do that and let everyone use the facilities. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, welcome back everybody. Mr. Thomas, if you could come up. So this is what the staff has come up with, that we amend the first condition to say construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan or as amended to provide parking in the front of the duplexes. Once again, if you were to change your site plan, if you would need any additional variances, you would have to come back before us. All we're doing today is approving the side yards of the outer two lots from six feet to five feet. That's the only thing we're approving today. Okay. So my question is, if he wants to put parking behind the building, does this change in the language allow him to do that? Yes, this would allow for what he has presented today with the parking in the rear or for him to amend the site plan to put the parking in front of the duplexes. Okay. All right. It's a you will agree to abide by that condition if that were to be approved. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other comments from the public on this revised condition? All right. Hearing none, then I will close this part of the hearing. It's a public comment, and I will take it to the board. Any discussion? you know assuming that this i mean i just did the quick math and i'm at about 78 feet for for a house size i don't know what mr thomas the uh the disc the what's the length of this home the house is duplex i'm sorry the house the duplex is 37 37 4 wide in depth yeah yeah 37 4. is that lots of hundred and forty hundred thirty feet lots of thirty saw that as the width on there but not the depth Okay, excuse me, you're right. The depth is 43-1. 43-1. The lot is 130 deep. Yeah, well, based on my math, that that's that's possible to bring parking in the front i need uh 10 foot for the backyard by the measurements of the i need 10 foot for backyard i'll have over 25 foot for backyard yeah and i looked on the pva and it's about 128 foot depth of a lot that works my only other thing is that didn't happen is there any um conditions we could put on here you know to limit any activity in the back like a fence that not only surrounds but actually comes up the side and does connect back into the duplexes and then maybe with some type of of gate for tenants only it's just a thought i'm not saying that i'm just mr thomas before you i'm gonna let a legal that has not issued would like me to sure yeah i just think you all need to stay on track as to what has been advertised and asked for today and this condition I don't think goes too far afield from that but in the event that an amended plan can't make this work without a further variance or for then I think you'd have to come back but in terms of starting to put a lot of other conditions for a possibility that hasn't been asked for probably might not be the most wise thing to do at this point. I'm fine with that. Any more comments or questions from the board? If not, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to approve PLN VOA 19-60 Fayette County Local Development Corporation's request for variances to reduce the required side yard setbacks from six feet to five feet in order to construct two duplexes within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 754 and 756 Florence Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and the two listed conditions including the amended condition one thank you in a second I'll second the discussion hearing that I'll call to a vote applications approved good luck with your project Corral Street. Oh yeah, I'll say don't go anywhere. You're up next. You know, I wouldn't even sit down. Yeah, grab your file and come right back up. Trust me, I was thinking that. Fortunately for this one, we had no letters according to my notes and I believe there's no opposition. This is PLNBOA 19-61 Fayette County Local Development Corporation. There's a request for, I think this is for variants related to 364 Corral Street. The applicant is present. Please state your name for the record. Eric Thomas. Thank you, sir. And staff has recommended approval. The approval is based upon the two conditions that staff has outlined. Have you reviewed those? Sure. Thank you. And you agree to abide by those? Yes, sir. And for the record, you work with the Fayette County Local Development Corporation? Yes, sir. And you are authorized to bind them and speak on their behalf today? Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay, I will now open it up to any comments from the board. Mr. Thomas, I'm not sure why you want to decrease the required number of parking spaces. We have a duplex there also. We were going to put two driveways on each side. But by zoning, you can't park a car behind each other on a duplex. You can't put a car in a car on a duplex. You can in a house, but not in a duplex. Right. So I needed to get, and then we had the issue was we had to have a foot side yard from our driveways. So in order to get the parking there, the people there to park there, we had to have one car per house per duplex. So we moved the parking, just the two cars, one for each duplex there. And parking is now in the rear of the house. Are you going to have a driveway on each side? Just one side. Which side? On the face of the house on the right hand side. Okay. Autumn, do we have a site plan that has driveways shown? One we had. And maybe we don't, but the one I'm looking at just shows the footprint of the house, but does not show any actual driveway or parking spaces. If you want, you can put it up on the, so we can all look at it once, if you only have one copy. And that may help some of the questions from the board. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, so this is a slightly amended plan it appears, but the applicant has indicated this is what building inspection recommended the plane that we had originally did show driveways on both sides of the duplex so now the plan will be you'll come in on corral street you go down the driveway there will be two spaces there and the other two Tenants will need to park on the street. Well, there's plenty of off-street parking. I have a four-plex on the other side of Corral Street. They have garages. So the other side of the new place is going to be basically... Oh, I'm just curious about what kind of the plan is. Does that be the plan? So each unit will have one designated space, and then if there's a second car, they would need to be off-street parking. Okay. They recommend doing the pavers behind this house for the green space. they recommend doing a six by four I think a six by four pavers behind this house because of the parking so the pavers behind the house is what what purpose are they gonna will they serve for extra green space and get rid of the water so it doesn't run into the street okay it's supposed to the ground okay thank you like a square block with a little uh tab on the side so you can hold water go down between them so it doesn't all run into the street yeah it's for runoff yes ma'am yeah I think that's just a little bit of flavor that's not what yeah well it makes sense to me that'd be the only feeling at two spaces that way you could turn around and get out of the I don't think you could fit unless you're willing to have people reverse out the driveway so Mr. Clark, do you have any questions or comments? Okay. Anybody else still pondering questions and comments? Well, hearing none, then I would entertain a motion. roll okay i move that we approve plnboa 19 jess 61 fayette county local development corporation's request for a variance to decrease the required number of parking spaces from four spaces to two spaces within the defined and fill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business r3 zone at 364 Corral Street for reasons recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Do I have a second? I have a first and a second. Before we vote, I would like the record to reflect that the site plan being approved today is the one that was shown today on the overhead and not the one that was in our packages. Any other questions or comments? Is the plan that you showed us significantly different than the one that was with the application? The one that was with the application showed driveways on either side of the duplex. Other than that, it appears to be substantially similar. It does not change our recommendation, if that's what you're... And it doesn't change the requirement for notice? No. Okay. Any other comments or questions? Hearing that, I'll put it to a vote. Your application is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you, sir. All right, now that we've gotten through the easy one, we're going to have the next one called. This is PLM BOA 19-72 Victor Chepak at 2804 Satin Leaf Park. I see that the applicant is present, so please come forward, sir. And before this one, the staff has recommended disapproval. So if you could state your name for the record. Victor Chepak. Thank you, Mr. Shepak. What I'm going to do is I'm going to have the staff give us a short report on why they recommended this approval, and then I'll have you come back up and let you give your argument of why you should be approved today. Thank you. So if you want a seat in this first row. Thanks. This application is for a variance to reduce the minimum setback for additional paved parking from six feet to zero feet. This is in order to bring an existing driveway into compliance. The driveway was permitted through building inspection last October with a drawing that showed a compliant driveway with the six-foot setback. This is one of those, like we see almost every month, I think, where we look at that taper back from the sidewalk that needs to be six feet, sort of that triangular portion of paving. And this is another case where the driveway was paved straight through the right-of-way and directly back. So there are two portions on either side of the driveway that are out of compliance that you'll see in the site plan. Staff has recommended disapproval of this because the paving was not completed in accordance with the approved site plan, which did note the requirement for the six-foot setback. That was part of their building permit. It was noted there. Additional justification for recommending disapproval is that this is a relatively new neighborhood. so whenever we start seeing these, we could be setting a precedent for other neighbors to do similar types of driveway expansions and not realize that it's not okay and we may be continuing to see more of these. We did not see that there were any special circumstances that justified the need for the variants. There appears to be sufficient space to navigate getting in and out of vehicles without those four small portions that are shown in the site plan to be noncompliant. And Autumn, was this complaint driven? This was, this came from the Division of Building Inspection. Whenever they went to inspect the final pavement, they found that it was not in compliance with the permit that they had issued. Could we put up the site plan so that I know exactly what's out of compliance, please? The yellow portions that you see in the site plan are the portions that are out of compliance. In front of the sidewalk, the two front yellow portions are within the public right-of-way. and then beyond that is the six-foot triangle that we would be looking for to flare. So they'd be able to keep the majority of the driveway. It would only be those four triangle pie portions. Yeah, that would need to be removed. Correct. And this is not dissimilar to the fence we had removed a few months ago where someone was not in compliance, it was a newer neighborhood. Correct. and the idea being we would not have otherwise approved this yeah any questions for autumn before she sits down thank you ma'am as always i will follow up we have any more questions sir you may come up Well, when I get the permit, and I didn't realize physically how it was going to be to look, and when I came home, I just drove through my subdivision, and I saw all the way they make straight, even three cars they made. The reason I did that, first one is for my safety, my kids. We have five kids. My wife, she's here expecting six. And we got two bigger vehicles. And mostly I was measured when they said that six feet to zero. almost half my driveway and if I'm will remove that that's no sense to have even that additional pair on the side because when I trying to get off from my wife from the driveway and across my my driveway it was parked two three cars on the road and you have to make white turn soon as you start moving back backwards and always we always go on the grass, make a puddle when it's rainy days, and my kids always sleeping over there. And even in the car, sometimes I'm just trying to get out, start spinning wheels. And because with a too large vehicle, you can't get out, especially when the car's parking on the road across that. And six feet, that's most important. you need an end of the driveway and sides. Because as soon as you, for a big turn, that's mostly the triangle that's where the most make a mud and the car starts slippery. That's the reason we request for a set from six feet to zero variance. For us, it's just for safety. Our kids, it's not something we need just for bigger driveway or something. Just because with a large vehicle, we just can't get out. We have to always go on the grass, especially with the rainy days. And when I go through my part of subdivision, I just make pictures. have it only that part believe they're almost 14 years in that subdivision it's not that new but i have a 43 pictures with a sideways with the driveways they make straight to the sideways what i suggest is if you want to look at them hand those to miss carter here and then we'll flip through them and then um we'll we need to leave those though as evidence we'll give give to the staff unless you have copies. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'm looking at some of these, and some of these photos, it looks like they were done correctly, the driveways. A number of these photos, I am just guessing were not properly permitted to be done in this manner. Like the one right across the street from you. Like the guy's in violation right across the street. Looks like Autumn. I didn't report him, but I'm just saying. And unfortunately, just because someone else is doing something they shouldn't be doing, doesn't mean we're going to necessarily approve it after the fact. But we'll look at these photos and the board can make some comments. Thank you. Thank you. I think I would also mention just for clarification that the six-foot setback is applicable to additional paid parking I know some of these are just walkways you know they've got additional walkway or or pavers on each side but just so you understand the distinction the original driveway existed but it's the additional paint when you create an additional parking space that's required to have the six foot seven right to elaborate on that a little bit what's defined as the driveway is the portion that is the width of your garage portion of your home so basically the garage door width is the width the allowable width of your driveway so whenever you go to wide and beyond the door that's what is considered additional pay for parking and that's when this setback is triggered Thank you. Thank you, sir. We looked at these photos. Like I said, we will put them into the record. I would like to ask staff, I have flipped through these, and I am not going to make a determination whether they are or are not in compliance. since you guys have not reviewed them. I would say that some of them look suspicious to me, and they appear on first blush that they may not be, but with that being said, even if they were not, even if every one of these were not in compliance, would you change your recommendation? We would not change our recommendation. Like I said, it's hard to say based on without having seen those, but in our research when we wrote the staff report I did observe the aerial photos of the neighborhood at large and did not, there were a couple that jumped out at me as potentially being non-compliant but from an aerial perspective it can be hard to tell of course because I don't know exactly how wide their garage may be in those situations, there are certainly some wider driveways but that may be that they are compliant at that house so it's hard to tell from a picture alone, be it aerial or in the front, whether or not something is in compliance. Okay. Any questions for staff or for the applicant? All right, sir, if you want to have a seat, I'm going to close the public portion. Any comments or discussion before we proceed for a motion? If not, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to suggest we give the staff just a moment to look through those and see if they can come to any conclusions. But I think even if the word can come to conclusions, Mr. Clark, it sounds like they would not change their recommendation since each complaint stands on its own. I say that simply because I'd like to know what we're dealing with here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're ready when you are. Thank you. It does appear that there are a number that would not be in compliance based on the current way that things are interpreted and permitted. It's impossible to make any conclusions about any specific one as to whether it's in or out of compliance because we don't know the permitting history. I can tell you that this section of the ordinance is on the hit list for revision because of the difficulty in interpreting where the required parking is, how to design it to be substantially in compliance. The driveway width itself has different limitations and dimensions depending on whether you go to building inspection or traffic engineering. It's different numbers. in the documents they use for guidance. So it is a pretty big can of worms that we struggle with. We can go either way with this. I don't think we're inclined to change our recommendation, but we're not going to argue aggressively if you all choose to go a different direction. I think I would just like to add to that, however, they did get a permit, So they turned in a plan that was permitted and approved, and it may be a contractor issue. It may be something different, but they had the requirements that they were allowed to do. And I think we've talked about that quite a bit with other, you know, other cases. It's, you know, they went through the process and asked for approval, and were given approval for a very specific thing and then did something different. That's a good point. this question for staff when the permit application was submitted was it submitted in compliance with the permit that was issued to show them what they needed to do i can show you the approved permit drawing and you'll see at the top of the page there are some notes there from the building inspector in that that box um where you see it says paving must stay at least six feet from the front property line and you see that that is what is shown in the drawing at the bottom that was approved. I think it looks pretty clear to me that Let me be clear. I'm not saying that my concern is that it seems to be a fairly rampant process here that people are ignoring the rules and I just wanted to point that out. So I think it was important that we put that on the record. That this is something that is, as Jim says, a can of worms. And I don't think that excuses this. And I think the staff recommendation is right on target. But I think it's really important that we note that this seems to be happening quite a bit in this area. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any more discussion? Hearing none, then I'm ready for a motion. I move for disapproval of PLN VOA 19-72 Victor Chapak's request for a variance to reduce the minimum setback for additional paved parking from six feet to zero feet in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 2804 Satin Leaf Park for reasons recommended by for the staff's reasons. Thank you ma'am. Do I have a second? I'll second. Any discussion on the motion before we put this to a vote? Hearing none then I'll put it to a vote. Sorry, your application was denied and you'll need to work with code enforcement. Thank you. That brings us to our next case. PLM BOA 19-68, Darcy and Kobe Tipton regarding 3840Y square. Applicant present. Thank you. One of you want to come up? I want to put you on the record. You state your name for the record? Darcy Tipton. Ms. Tipton, the staff has recommended approval today. That approval was based upon two recommendations. Have you guys reviewed that? Yes, we have. And are you in agreement to comply with that? We are, yes. Okay. And I believe we had one opposition today? Okay. So since we do have some opposition, why don't you go ahead and explain to us what your application is for? Okay. So we are New Fayette County residents. We were in Scott County for the last 20 years, and we moved from a farm. So we needed to move to a neighborhood where we could build an attached garage to our home because we have five vehicles and we don't like our vehicles outside. So we moved to Westmoreland where the lots are larger and we could do that. We cleared it with the realtor who also lived in the neighborhood at the time. We very carefully went over the building restrictions and everything like that. Worked with an architect. Worked with the realtor. All that stuff. So designed our garage to attach to the building, got our builder, and he discovered that it was too close to the property line. So that's why we're here. It was 10 feet too close. We did go back and revisit with our architect to see if we could possibly move it a little bit 10 feet in. And we were in agreement with him that as you look at our home, it was just going to aesthetically look very wrong to move it over. and in keeping with the way the neighborhood looks and for future resale and everything like that. It's such a large structure, and sitting back kind of off to the side of the house, it just was not going to be good to not keep it right there. And I'm looking. it looks like and be honest with you it's been a while so I've been in Westmoreland but looks like most of the houses have really no screening between the lots is that by homeowner restrictions or is that just how it's you are not allowed have dancing okay above ground we all have invisible yeah okay is there anything else you want to bring uh to the board's attention or is it well yes so we did have to get we did have to submit paperwork and get um approval from the homeowners association so we did that and And unfortunately, even though I did request it, I don't have written approval. I got a phone call from Rob Mudd. He said, go ahead, you're good to go. We got approval. Go for it. I said, okay, can you send me an email on that? Oh, sure, sure, sure. Don't have it. Well, there's good news and bad news. The good news is whether or not your neighbors like it doesn't really matter to us. if it falls within the parameters. The bad news is that's a private contract between you and your neighbors that they could otherwise have issues. So anyway, so then we were rather surprised to see our neighbors here. Okay. Okay. Does anyone have a question for Ms. Tipton before? Okay, Ms. Tipton, what I will do is go ahead and have a seat. Okay. We will let people who want to testify either in favor or in opposition, I do not believe we have any letters, they will have an opportunity, and then you'll be able to come up and rebut, and then I'll normally close down public, and then we'll have discussions. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Allen. I am the president of the Westmoreland Neighborhood Association. At its last meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board adopted a resolution unanimously to oppose this application and directed me to appear here today to express the neighborhood's opposition to this application. I don't know how familiar you all are with Westmoreland. It's out past Keeneland off Versailles Road. When you drive into the neighborhood, though, you will be struck, I think, by one of the defining features of the neighborhood, and that is its open, park-like feeling. I think that that park-like feeling was one of the fundamental things that developer Harry Wise attempted to accomplish when he developed the neighborhood, and I think that aspect of the neighborhood, I don't think there's anything like it in Fayette County. That openness, that open feeling is attributable to three characteristics, in my view, of the neighborhood, among others. The first is the minimum lot size, which is one acre. Some are larger, but that's the minimum lot size. The second is there is indeed a deed restriction that prohibits perimeter fences, and that is unique, I believe. Every other neighborhood I know of in Lexington has the backyards fenced off and segmented. In Westmoreland you won't see that. You'll just see openness. The third thing that creates that feeling of spaciousness and the park-like setting are the setback and side yard requirements, which are designed to keep the buildings away from each other and again create open space. This application strikes at the heart of that, and it's not a road the neighborhood wants to go down. I'm unaware of any side yard variance ever being approved in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood does not want one to be approved in this case. So they've directed me to come and express that. With me is Bud Beagle, who's also a director. Ginger Cord also was here earlier. but she had to leave. But in any event, I'm here to speak on behalf of the neighborhood in opposition to this. I'll be happy to entertain any questions you might have. So is the neighborhood's objection to the sidelot variance, but not necessarily the garage itself? That is correct. They did go through the process and asked the Committee on Property Alterations to approve this. And we are not averse to the design of the structure. But at the time it was approved, we did not know that it was going to require a variance. And had we known that, it never would have been approved. So just for clarification, it was approved and then, so they were told it was approved? they were told it was approved we realized there was a variance we didn't yeah they they didn't i don't think they even knew that a variance was going to be required at the time they went through the the neighborhood approval process but as i said um you know the project it's unfortunate i feel bad about this because they've gone to a lot of trouble and they've i think they've tried to jump through the hoops i don't know when they learned the variance was going to be necessary But as I said, had we known, it never would have been approved by the neighborhood. Mr. Elliott, can I ask you this question? When you look at that property, we're talking about where the property ends. In fact, can you tell by just looking at it where the property is divided, where the next lot begins? I'm trying to think back. It is not immediately apparent. There is not a fence line, for example, that would give you a clue as to whether, you know, where that property line is exactly. But you can tell. You can tell pretty. How can you tell? Well, just because the way, well, I can tell because I know where the lot line is. I've seen the plat. Of course. So I don't know whether you would know where it is. Okay. I concede that because there is not a fence. But that's, again, one of the defining features of the neighborhood. but no offenses. Okay, I can appreciate that. I do know your neighborhood, and I certainly appreciate what you're saying. I'm just curious. That's a mature neighborhood, so there are lots of mature trees in the area as well, so it's not just open lawn. No, but there are mature trees, but those trees, the foliage is up in the area. when you're standing on the ground there is a feeling of openness and I again believe it to be unique I looked for a house myself for a year all over and didn't even know Westmoreland existed and I went out there and I was immediately struck with that sense of openness and park-likeness and I wasn't entirely sure at first what caused that but I now know and and again I know of no other neighborhood in Fayette County that's like that. And we want to preserve that. Mr. Allen, so you would oppose any variance in this neighborhood? Yes, sir. Any variance of a sod lotter setback requirement, yes. Okay. Absolutely. As I said, I feel bad for the Tiptons. They've gone to some trouble here, but I have a responsibility to represent the neighborhood. Any more questions for Mr. Allen? Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Anyone else here from the audience who wants to speak? All right. All right, well, Ms. Tipton, come on back up, and I'll give you an opportunity to give a rebuttal, and then I'm sure there's going to be some more questions for you. Okay. Okay. I just really don't understand or know what it would have to do with... So, oh, sorry. I want to address what... I think Mr. Clark, it was you that asked, can you tell where the division is? between the two houses and and no you really can't unless you've seen a plat between the Ocampos and ours so and that's intentional we've got plantings and they've got plantings it was the previous owners we just moved there in March and we're going out under a complete house remodel and and then this as well or hopefully this as well they the the previous owners had planted kind a garden area and so the campus to where our yards blend essentially and it is a park-like setting and that's intentional in the neighborhood but also there's large trees and and you really honestly cannot tell where one yard begins and one yard ends and that is like I said intentional so I'm I'm not really sure what the purpose is in that division line or knowing where it is. The Ocampus have no problems with it as far as building right there. And the driveway already exists right there, and that would be where, as you can see right on this site map, where our building would be. So it's not that we're going over any further, but I do realize that a building is different than pavement. We would have to completely start from scratch. I realize that's not your problem, but we would. And we're already maybe here deep in it. Let me ask you, Mrs. Stipton. um are these these appear to have been drawn to scale yes uh does the staff have the one handy that looks like this maybe can you show me what you had again i believe that's what i have yeah Let me just say it's, let's say maybe page one. Is this what you? No, this one looks fancier. Yeah, I think that one's from the permit drawings. Let me see if I have those available. The one that I've. It's in the documents. It's, Chad, it's in the documents. There we go. there is an elastic little scale is that what shows it looks to me like it shows more than 25 feet from the boundary line I didn't know what the discrepancy is between what was in our application and what was in the permit application I mean our packet permit application versus right i'm looking at it i'm adding up the the feet and i'm like that's almost looks like almost 30 feet it's definitely 25 feet if you're if you if you look at that number on the bottom that says 19.08 feet is that feet from the property line to the drop the edge of the driveway because that's i think what we're scaling yeah i'm not it looks to me like that was an older drawing perhaps that that the designer has used again and that dimension is maybe not correct. All right, would you put up a new one then? Because I don't think I have that in my packet. This is the site plan. I don't know what's going on with the packets today. I think you should also have this in your packet. I think you may be, this was the site plan that was submitted for the BOA application. And I believe I had printed out the permit drawings as well and had them in the file. So I think you got both. But you may not have this one. But the 15 feet shown there is the variance that's being listed. Yeah, that was not in our packet. Okay. That one there. But I guess my question is the drawings look the same. So did the garage get white? I guess I'm curious about it. I'm not sure where that number at the bottom came from, and I think I would disregard that. You mean the 19.8? Yes. I have a question for staff. What I found interesting was the point regarding that if it were actually an attached garage, that we really wouldn't be having the same issue. That is correct. There are two circumstances that are worth noting here. If this were, we are looking at this as a detached garage because the portion connecting the garage itself from the house is an open and unenclosed walkway that just has a roof over it. So that has to be counted as a detached garage because that's not an enclosed conditioned space. If this were attached, if that space were enclosed and conditioned, then we would be able to average the side yard for the entire structure and the variance would not be required. it's also of note that if the the structure were detached and put behind the the rear wall plane of the existing house we would only be looking at an 18 inch side yard setback for an accessory structure yeah and I wish we could but we would be covering a portion of of our garage then because right is that right probably well we couldn't cover that so do you already have a garage yes this is the second house right we have five vehicles because he hands the company so we have to we don't like vehicles out so we want to put them all in yeah correct yeah we have to drive underneath miss tipton And do you plan on moving any trees when you construct this new? No, we have already taken trees out. Taken trees out, have you put any back in? Well, we had to take two trees out in order to potentially build this structure. Big, huge, old trees. Yeah. Yes. Is there a reason you can't move it back? behind the house five ten feet and then move it to the i'm thinking north northeast is that right north north yeah behind the house a little bit to get your 10 feet so essentially the covered porch make it a little bit further back and in to the yard it would be hard to access from the existing house then because there's really no exterior entrance from the house. We would have to come off the deck down into what there is. It would be a really difficult way to access it. I may add to that. The sight line wouldn't change even though the variance would be not necessary if it moved it back, but at the same time, the objection of the neighborhood would still be, the sight line would be exactly the same, even though the garage just moved back, so I don't see any point in changing it. What I'm saying is, even if you did move it back, the sight line from the street, let's say, is going to look the same. It's going to be still the same distance from the lot, the lot, the lot line. Right, correct. that wouldn't matter. I think we're talking about back and behind the house, like back and over. Any more questions for Mrs. Tipton? Anything else you want to add before I close the public portion? Just one more small thing. when we were outside trying to come to terms, they did mention they're concerned about setting a precedent for other neighbors. And I'm not concerned about that because I believe that everyone is a separate case. And every single lot here in Westmoreland is completely shaped differently. So I just don't see how that's it. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any discussion or comments? Hearing none, then I guess I'll entertain a motion, it sounds like. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 19-68, Darcy and Colby Tipton's request for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to construct a new garage in an AR zone at 3840 Wise Square for the reasons reported in the staff report and subject to the two conditions in the report. Second. Thank you. Before we vote, real quickly, I cannot recall. Mrs. Tipton, did I ask you about the conditions? Okay. I could not recall. So the applicant has confirmed I asked her about the conditions, and she also confirmed she agreed to abide by those, so it's on the record. Any discussion on the motion before we hear a vote? Hearing none, then I'll set to a vote. Application is approved. The application is approved. Good luck with your project. this brings us to the next case which is PLN BOA 19-69 Kayett Doe and Anna Rezek's request regarding 136 Medow Road applicant is present thank you And I believe someone was here in opposition for this case. All right. And we have one letter. Is that a letter in opposition? Okay. So while we're reading that, I'll address some items. Please state your name for the record. My name's Scott Dreyer, and I'm not the owner, but I'm representing them. Okay, Mr. Dreyer, what is your relationship with the homeowner? I'm a contractor and an architect on the project. Okay, and you have the authority to speak on their behalf today and bind them? Yes, sir. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval. That approval is subject to three conditions. Have you and your client had an opportunity to review those? Yes, sir. And you and your client agreed to abide by those? Sure. Thank you. Then while we're reading this, if you want, go ahead and tell us in a few minutes about your project. So it's a very unusual lot. I don't know if anybody has looked at the site on these conditions. It's a very large lot for the neighborhood, and the house is very small. It's way back on the property. It's a fairly small carriage-style home. It wasn't originally built as a carriage house, but it kind of looks like one. It's already in noncompliance on the backyard setback. It's 34 feet, I think, currently off of the property line. And because of the depth of the yard, it's 250 feet roughly. We're about 50 foot on the offsets required on the piece of property. The intention of the addition is to keep the integrity of the house intact. It's centered on the lot. And to kind of come in from behind in a fairly modern structure with a lot of open space and glass. That's the addition to the residence. in conjunction with this they would also like to construct a garage in the location where an existing garage was up until about three years ago in the from what we understand about three years ago the previous owner tore the garage down and because of the site conditions and how far back the house is and my clients really wanted to keep the integrity of the property in the in the focal point of the house it's not really a way you could get the garage behind the structure and so that's why we're proposing to put the garage back in basically the same location it was originally on the property and also the kind of site conditions the driveway it's kind of the yard goes uphill and at the edge of the driveway between the driveway and the house there's actually a retaining wall where he kind of goes up a couple feet so we wanted to utilize the existing driveway to put the new garage it's going to be a fairly modern structure it's going to be low and sleek so it doesn't obstruct with the view of the house and it'll kind of be right up against the side of an existing garage on i forget the address next down 130 might be 138. it's about the same size and scale of the house will be the garage is right beside it and kind of just off the property line from it it'll actually be lower than that garage with because our idea is to do a flat roof on this again so we don't overwhelm the small size of the house and the property with the scale of the of the garage itself. I have a quick question. I was looking at some pictures of at least when they purchased the home. It looks like there's already an addition on the back. Is that correct? Small, probably a sleeping porch on the back. Okay. But that looked two stories. It's like a screened-in porch on the second floor. So will that be removed? Okay. I was just making sure we weren't going back and back. Yeah, it's an old porch that was probably just closed in on the first floor. Okay. So it's still got sloped floors in it and stuff like that. Gotcha. You can't save it and put a second's front on top of it. Mr. Dreyer, it looks to me from the, and I'm familiar with the neighborhood. I have friends that live over in that area. I know people there as well. This house has always been an unusual house in this neighborhood. It's not like any of the other houses, and it sets back much farther on the lot than any of the other houses in that block that it occupies. Do you know anything about the history of the house? Why it was built that way? Well, ironically, I'm doing an addition at 218 McDowell for a client right now, and they have a book about the neighborhood. And the books, we just found this out last week. Apparently that was built by the gentleman that built the house. His idea was to build that structure back there and then build two more structures on the front of the property and subdivide it into three pieces of property. And it never happened, I guess. And so he just built the one structure. It looks like a carriage house. Yeah. But it was never a carriage house. It was just built to look like one. Thanks. I don't know if that's right or not. We don't have one. Nobody knows, really, I think. Anything else you want to add or any questions before we take witnesses in opposition? All right. Thank you, sir. If you want to have a seat. Yeah. Mr. Kaufman. The neighborhood. Please state your name for the record. Oh, it's Ben C. Kaufman. I live on Sycamore behind or in front, either way you want to talk about it, of this house. It's kind of catty corner. Mr. Ammerman, whose letter you have of opposition is next door. You have the Richmans, et cetera. And I also was asked to talk for one of the neighbors next door on this property on McDowell. As I've sat here and listened to everything, particularly Mr. Clark talking about, you have rules and regulations of why you have so many feet between properties. Ashland was established, obviously, by Henry Clay, and all the lots there are a certain size, and I would doubt that there's less than 20 to 30 feet between properties. So the existing rules say on the sides it's six feet, and they want to cut it in half. Also from the back, it's 50 feet or 20% of the lot there, and they want to really reduce that. And that's why we're opposed to this. This lot has been an unusual lot. I've lived in my property 45 years, so I'm familiar with it. First of all, the owner knew when they purchased this lot how the property sat and the residents there. So they knew that they're going to have to ask for a variance if they wanted to change anything. No one ever came to our house or said anything to any of the neighbors about whether we would support it or not. Again, the rules have been made, and there's a great deal of variance. I mean, you're cutting the side in half, and in the back, I don't know, 80%. The problem is Mr. Ammerman, if he looks out his windows at night during the winter and vice versa, they'll see him to each other's house. It's right there. it's it's you're enclosing the property by allowing these other two structures to be built also a flat roof on the garage is something that would be a little bit new in this neighborhood and is inappropriate it is our understanding that they're going to have to remove trees and rework some of the other things But the main thing is that with a little imagination, they might be able to do something in front as opposed to the back and having the house or the new structure in the back be 14 feet from the property line. I'm sure none of you all would want something that close to your house or where you live. and so that's that's a kind of my argument that you need to follow the rules and do the right thing thank you any questions thank you sir any questions for Mr. Kaufman before he sits down thank you Mr. Dreyer if you want to come up and do a quick rebuttal and then I'll close this off and we'll discuss and have a vote yes sir so I'd just like to address a couple things he said there First, I harken back to the case you guys just approved as far as people buying property and not knowing zoning regulations. You don't buy a house and look at the zoning when you're purchasing a property. So second is I understand where Mr. Kaufman lives and where the neighbor lives. And if you guys could pull up an aerial view of the property, you would see that both of those pieces of properties have giant garages that are right on their property lines against Mr. Doe's property. And so although they're concerned with their views of what they see and somebody's view across their property, that's not really a relevant case to deny this because somebody doesn't like the view that they're blocking. We actually had the same issue when we pulled a permit at 105 Sycamore, the first house in, where a lady on Richmond Road didn't like the fact you were putting an addition on the back of that house. And they said, well, your view's not, you don't own the view past the fence line, basically. It's not your property. But if you can see the driveway and where we're planning on putting the garage is on this side of it, and you can see the garage right next to it, we'd probably be more than willing to work on the roof line, but we'd just feel like the integrity of the property. And I think historical boards always like to see progression in architecture. They would rather see you build something new and different to show the change of design rather than mimicking old stuff. And I think Latrobe would think the same thing in his neighborhood as it progressed through time. But you can see clearly behind there, I'm assuming Mr. Kaufman is 121 or maybe he's 119 or 125. You can see those large garages that are pushed right up against their property already. So, you know, I think as far as site views, and I just don't see that being a relevant argument here, and I don't believe it's also approvable to build additions and furnace structures. So, you know, you're not allowed to build a house in front of another house. So our options are side and back. We're going to be at variance no matter what. and our intention on the design is to stick really strongly with this carriage house and do something that just kind of pokes out a little bit. As you guys can see in the drawing we're provided, we're only sticking out about five feet on either side of the width of this existing structure, and we're only going back 18 feet, which is only, I think, five feet further than the existing screened-in porches now. So we're not increasing the existing two-story addition by very much at all in reality of the volume that's already there, as well as we're not going to be going higher than the existing roof line. So there will be no view obstruction from behind there anyway because we're not building a three- or four-story structure. We're building a two-story structure similarly scaled and height-wise to the one that's already there. and the garage will be positioned about where that car is parked um yeah the one uh not not the truck but the one uh the car on the side of this side here so we've got about we'll be about 12 feet onto the concrete uh and then it puts us about eight feet off the concrete puts us about uh three and a half to four feet off the property line it's the best we can tell you know without actually string and strings are getting a site marker there the garage to the side of it on 146. You know that is that is probably two feet off the property line maybe and I believe we get to take one tree out an old black locust tree that sits behind the uh the driveway right there. I think it's the only tree that's going to be affected by construction of either addition of the addition or the uh the garage and the homeowners are more than happy to plant trees. everybody remembers that lot five years ago you couldn't even see the house and so their intention isn't to you know bring property down by values down this neighborhood is to hopefully increase them and pushing them looks pretty nice thank you sir anymore oh here we go were they the were they the ones that were the current owners the ones that took down all the or was that bought? No, they just purchased the house this summer. They moved from Fontaine Road and purchased this house. They've been, I guess, looking at it like a lot of people have for a number of years. And one of the reasons we went to the garage there is that's a concrete driveway and it's probably a very expensive driveway to replace and redo if you're trying to put the the garage anywhere else. And it was the location where the garage was until three years ago, too. Any more questions for Mr. Dreyer? Thank you, sir. Thank you. At this time, we'll go ahead and close out the public portion, and if there are any comments or discussions from the board or questions, please proceed. Mr. Chair, I'd like to just respond to Mr. Kaufman. I understand exactly what he's saying, and I certainly agree that we stick with the rules. I think that's very important. On the other hand, a variance is an exception, and we have to look at each case as an individual case, and I'm not talking about this one necessarily, but I think it's important that we understand that sometimes a reasonable exception is appropriate, and I think Mr. Latrobe would also agree with that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? All right, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. I move we approve PLN BOA 19-69. Keep due in Ann Ruzick's requests for variance of one to reduce the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 14 feet in order to construct an addition to an existing house, and two to reduce the required side yard setback from 6 feet to 3 feet in order to construct a detached garage. within the required side yard in a two-family residential R2 zone at 136 McDowell Road, based on staff's four recommendations and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, sir. Second. Ms. Carter seconds. Any discussion on this motion? All right. We'll call to a vote. Application is approved. Good luck with your project. And I think this brings us to the last case of the day. This is an administrative appeal. We do have at least one letter. Is that in opposition? or is that in favor of the person not be able to do what they want to do? This is in favor of the appeal. Okay. This is in favor of determining that building inspection erred in their issuance of the park. Thank you, ma'am. This is PLN BOA 1970-74, Jeremy Young. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Come on up. And this is regarding 1904 Tates Creek Road. And in this instance, Mr. Young, the staff has recommended disapproval of your appeal. So if you could, just state your name for the record for us. My name is Jeremy Young. Thank you, Mr. Young. If you want to have a quick seat, I'll have Autumn give us an explanation of what's going on. You'll get an opportunity to speak, and then anyone in the audience, either in favor or in opposition, will get an opportunity to speak. You'll have the opportunity to rebut, and then we'll close here, public comments, and then we'll have a discussion. Thank you, sir. Do you want to take a minute or do you want me to go ahead? Oh, no, you proceed and we'll look at these. Yeah, sorry. I was looking for that. Yeah, on the screen here you will see the drawing that was approved by the Division of Building Inspection and the Division of Planning also signed off on this application. to construct a detached accessory building with a garage on the first floor and laundry facilities on the second floor. The main structure that you see facing Tates Creek Road is an existing non-conforming use. It's an apartment building containing four units in a single-family zone where apartment buildings are typically not allowed, but it is a legal non-conformity. Part of non-conforming uses is that they cannot be expanded. So the applicant is appealing the decision to issue this permit based on their belief that this is an expansion of the non-conforming use. Planning staff has interpreted in the past, as has this board, that accessory structures are not an expansion of a non-conforming use necessarily. In this situation, with the non-conforming use being apartments, an addition that contained an additional apartment dwelling would clearly be an expansion of the use. In this case, parking was already taking place in this portion of the property. So since the parking is meant to accommodate the users of the existing apartments, we do not see this as an expansion of the use. It's not adding any new users or expanding what's happening on the property. There are a couple of cases that we referenced in the staff report with similar outcomes. In 2010, there was an administrative review where the board determined that a parking and storage building would not be considered an expansion of a 14-unit apartment building, so sort of a similar situation there. It's also important to note that accessory structures are an accessory use in this zone, And the accessory structures are based upon, not use, but on the structure and the site to which they are accessory. So an accessory structure of this size in this location could be constructed if the house were not for apartment units but one single family residence. This same structure could still be constructed legally without requiring any kind of variance or special approval. so for that reason we recommend that you uphold the division of building inspections issuance of the permit i want go back to your comment a second ago on the distinction between if this were a single family residence they could build a garage correct but because it is a multi-family they cannot build the garage no they we are saying that that we signed off on it that they could build the garage the applicant is asserting that that the issuance of the permit was not correct and that they should not be able to have this accessory structure because they are a non-conforming use oh okay autumn i have a question about about the ordinance article 4.3 4-3a talks about the non-conforming uses it can't be expanded The last sentence there in the language, it says, in addition, it may not be altered in any way that it would extend or enlarge the scope or the area of its operation. What does it refer to? It may not be altered or its operation. I'm not sure what it refers to. It would refer, I believe, to the nonconforming use. So whenever we're dealing with nonconformities, we have nonconforming lots, we have nonconforming structures, and we have nonconforming uses. So it's easy to get those all kind of muddled sometimes. Right, exactly. So in this case, only the use is nonconforming. So that use of that lot as apartments rather than as a single family residence. Yeah, it's unclear from the text of the ordinance whether it refers to the use or the building, because both of those are in the language of the ordinance. Maybe it's intended to be vague, but fair enough. Thanks. While I have the floor, I have a question for legal. I'm not familiar enough with ordinances on who can appeal the issuance of a building permit. Is there a standing requirement, or can anybody appeal, or is it limited to, I don't know, citizens of the U.S.? Is it limited in any way? It's a standing question, I think. Well, I think that it's not extremely limited in the ordinance. It falls under Article 7.6.D. It's under the Board of Adjustment, and it just talks about an administrative review. And then there's also a section under 7.6.E. about other appeals, and it gives specific divisions that those appeals can be taken from. One's the Division of Building Inspection, one's the Division of Planning. And so in relation to their interpretation or things that relate to flow from the zoning ordinance. So it's interpreted pretty loosely. So if the... Pardon me, I can't recall. Is there a language in there that says it's an aggrieved party? in this several appeals in the code and I can't recall under the section D 760 when it talks about administrative review it talks about it does not use the words aggrieved in 76 e when it talks about other appeals it talks about any person or entity that claims to be injuriously affected or aggrieved. Yeah. So that's pretty broad. Yeah, it's real broad. So if the LFUCG wanted to build a new government building, because I'm a resident of Fayette County, I could appeal, issue a permit, for example. I don't think they need a permit. Yeah. I'm not going to go there. Maybe that's a bad example. That's a bad example. Sorry. Thank you for showing us that. That answers my question. So in this instance, the building inspections thought it was appropriate to allow this garage. It's just a three-car garage. There's no more apartments or anything. Correct. It's a garage, and then on the second floor, there is a space for laundry facilities. So, but otherwise used by the residents of the apartments, but otherwise it complies. You guys all agree that complies with the other height requirements, everything else. Right. Yes. Building inspection determined that it met all of the other requirements and planning was a sign off on the permit for the determining that this was okay and not an expansion of the non-conforming use. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. And I'm assuming that someone here is the applicant for the original permit. Okay. So let's have these gentlemen up first, talk about their plan, and then we'll have – let me try to think here actually. Wait before I do this. Actually, let's do the applicant first. It's his appeal. I'll let him speak first, and then you gentlemen can come up. Sorry, it's been a while since we've had a contested with both parties here. Are we ready? Yes, sir. Please state your name for the record and proceed. My name is Jeremy Young. I live at 906 Tates Creek Road. Basically, I'm here to ask the board to approve my appeal for this commercial building permit at 904 Tates Creek Road on the grounds that it violates Article 4 of the Fayette County Zoning Code that regulates non-conforming uses. Article 4-2 states that the intent of the zoning ordinance is to permit the non-conforming use to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. As Mr. Glover pointed out, 4-3G, in no instance shall a non-conforming use be extended to displace a non-conforming use, nor to occupy land outside such building. and 4-3a says no non-conforming use shall be enlarged or extended or rebuilt so as to occupy a greater land area than was occupied at the date of adoption or amendment of this zoning ordinance. 4-2, 4-3g, and 4-3a. Thank you, sir. And while he's talking, I wonder if we could put 4-2 up on the board, because we don't have that in the staff report. Thank you. Should I continue? The staff report lists three reasons why you should reject my application, and I'm going to address all of those. First they claim that the use is not being expanded because they are not adding dwelling units. But I've read Article 4 numerous times and nowhere does it state build whatever you want as long as it's not dwelling units. What it does say is that no instance shall a non-conforming use be extended to displace a conforming use nor to occupy land outside such building. So basically what this building permit does is it takes a room that is normally located inside a dwelling, which is a laundry room, and places it in an external building. But they're claiming this doesn't expand the use. Well, I beg to differ. Second, the staff report claims that adding 1,680 square feet of amenities somehow does not ensure the survival of this non-conforming use. But common sense will tell you that adding garages, storage space, and laundry rooms will naturally make these non-conforming apartments more attractive to renters, more profitable to the landlord, and certainly will help ensure their survival. Thirdly, the staff report makes the argument that if 904 Tates Creek Road conformed with R1D zoning, that the structure in question would be allowed. which is true but it is also true that 904 Tates Creek Road does not conform to R1D zoning and therefore should not be allowed to expand but even if you agree 100% with the planning department that on these three points and treat this property as an R1D you still approve my appeal on the grounds that the plan doesn't even follow R1D regulations because it was allowed to have a 24-foot wide driveway, and the regulations for driveways in the LFUCG infill and development regulations is a private paved vehicular access a maximum of 20 feet in width or 10 feet inside the infill and redevelopment area, which this is inside the infill and redevelopment area. but somehow they allowed the applicant to have a 24-foot wide driveway without even coming to this board and applying for a variance. What they did say is it has to be in accordance with standard drawing 307-2, which sets the guidelines for entrances for commercial properties. So on one hand, they want you to treat this as a residential R1D. On the other hand, they want you to allow it to have an entrance for a commercial property, which directly contradicts the planning department's claim that this would be allowed in an R1D zone in the infill and redevelopment area. And it's for these reasons that I'm asking you to approve my appeal. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, that was a lot to digest. And I didn't have any. Do you by chance have those points in a written form? You got a chance to have those points written? Okay. Well, that's fine. We'll come back to Ms. Clark. I'm going to let the actual applicant, not the appellant, come forward and let them tell us what they're doing here. Because unfortunately, our packet that we received didn't have the underlying, a lot of the underlying. I didn't have the drawing. There was not one that was submitted because it was the third-party appeal. Yes. No, I understand. Okay. Please stay tuned for the record. Ryan Atkins. Could we go ahead and throw the plans back up? And, Mr. Atkins, if you could walk us through the residence and the number of units, et cetera, and then walk us through the garage, number of cars, what's going on top, et cetera? Okay, we'll do so. The backdrop on this property is back in late in 18, we were getting complaints from the city from sediment and soil erosion into the sidewalks, into the street, and in order to comply after several meetings with them, ultimately it was decided that to concrete the skirt and to concrete the driveway and the pavement would be the ideal solution not necessarily for my pocketbooks but definitely for the street and sidewalks so we also have complaints of of leaves and these are from our property and we again had complaints of the dirt so at the end of the day cutting down some trees and paving it was really the only solution other than hiring somebody coming by daily to sweep up the sidewalk in the driveway so it was originally a rock uh driveway so in lieu of that i figured also i would build a garage for the tenants because these are very tall trees when the storm had when storms hit leaves fall limbs fall boom on top of their car and so i've had a couple of insurance complaint so i'm not sure this is necessarily a a an attempt to increase revenue by any means unfortunately i wish i didn't have to do it but if we're wanting to solve the solution i'm going to have to put in a concrete driveway and then also provide a garage for the tenants in addition that there is no washer and dryer facility on site so i thought it would be appropriate if i'm going to build a structure to give that to them as an additional benefit. I've been there, done that in this type of price range, so it is nice to have a laundry site on. Let me ask you a couple questions. Number one, it looks like the garage itself will be 40 by 21, so about 800. I'm going to pass these good detailed questions on somebody who knows what they're talking about. All right, come on up. Please introduce yourself. Salwin Ribeiro. I'm the builder on site, Frontier Construction. So what's going to be the size of the garage? It's 40 by 21. It's a double garage. So you'll be able to fit four cars? Yes. What's going to be the size of the second story? The same size. There's laundry rooms on each side. They're 12 by 12 feet deep by the width. And there's four washers on each side. So there will be four laundry rooms, one for each unit to have its own separate laundry room is the intent not to have one big room? Yes. Okay. And then, and I can't tell from the aerial, is there off-street parking readily available? No. Because it looks like one side is no parking by the church, the Greek church. What about the other side? There's hardly any parking on that street. sunset it's a very narrow and um tate's creek there's no parking so most of the time the tenants been parking in the grass which caused the the destroyed us the sod which in turn when it rained mud went to the streets so are there are there no laundry facilities in the apartment no sir not even not the basement or the not any of the units have laundry facilities what do the tenants do about laundry wear dirty clothes i'm assuming they have well they probably use the same laundry men i did in chevy chase uh when i was living on maxillow street so is it fair to say that the building of laundry facilities will will enhance the utility of the apartment units um It'll switch back and forth. I'm not quite sure. No, sir. I don't believe so. No, but when you've got additional space upstairs, you're going to have to use it for something. How big are the units? Gosh, that's a really good question. I'm going to say these are more of efficiencies. There is one, I believe. One, two bedroom. How many are there in the building? Four. How many square feet is the building? Mr. Gross, that's a great question. and I'm going to go on record if I'm going to guess 2,200. Am I way out of line? I don't know. 24. How many occupants? There's four units, I believe. There are three single individuals and one couple, I believe. any more questions for the property owner all right thank you gentlemen have a seat we may call you back up miss Clark I didn't ask for a handouts, Ms. Clark. Are these for us to share or do you have one for Tommy? Yeah, usually you bring plenty, so. Thanks. I'm a troublemaker. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road and you might want to swear me in because I was not here when you swore the others in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Not sure where to start, but I thought maybe if you had a look at it. This is the building site as it looked yesterday. I don't know if the lights dim so you can see more of it. So you can see that the extent of the new project is very considerable. You have in your packet the site plan and also a couple of, well, an elevation to get a sense of the mass and scale of the whole. And in fact, there are a few more nonconformities in the lot and the parking area and so forth than just the nonconformity of having four dwelling units rather than one in R1D. So one thing, this was already mentioned, you can see the driveway width there, which I measured, and at the outer edge of the apron, right at the right-of-way, it's 19 feet. And where it meets the sidewalk, it's 14 feet. And as was noted, it's to be ten feet in R1D in the infill and redevelopment area for the depth of the front yard or the side street side yard. It goes also for, this is a corner lot, so we don't call it a front yard. We call it a side street side yard, but it is treated like a front yard. Quickly though, does that apron not exist already? That apron exists already at 14 feet. Okay. The plan shows it at 24 feet. Okay. And if you can picture the parking that was the way it was used two months ago, what would happen is people would come in. If you look on your site plan, they would come straight in the driveway and then turn nose toward the house, and there was ample room for four or maybe even five or six cars there. And so essentially the enlargement of the parking area not only adds four spaces in a garage under roof, it still leaves at least three of those spaces could have unobstructed garage access, plus you could put four cars nose in towards the house on the apron where I mean I'm sorry on the on the paved area let's say the vehicle use area is over abundant it's certainly greatly enlarged there's a rule that if you have 1800 square feet a vehicle use area you have to have landscaping and stormwater management. That's throughout the city. It's nothing to do with infill. Certainly with the rooftop, they would exceed that, but I'm not sure that the rooftop, the actual under-roof garage area counts in that 1,800 square feet for stormwater management. Could I have the next? This is just a shot near the house. The ground disturbance has gone right up to the edge of the house, but that doesn't mean they're going to pave all that. It's not indicated that they would on the plan. The next one. This is trying to give you a sense of the extent of the garage. Is that the full slide or does it need shrinking a little? That's it. Okay. So, you can see that the building itself occupies a great deal. And then the next slide. This gives you a sense of the character of the neighborhood. The neighbor's yard, and that would be Mr. Taylor next door if I don't mistake it, has a wonderful tall tree. This is a neighborhood with small houses, pretty small lots, and big, big trees. And that's what we favor and like. We are the original walkable neighborhood, Hollywood Terrace. And super abundant parking and houses for cars and so on is, I would say out of character. Certainly a four car garage would be the only four car garage in the Hollywood Terrace subdivision. And I live in the Hollywood Terrace subdivision. Let me see if there's anything else in terms of that. It has a minimum rear yard of 30 feet in R1D that can be built on with a garage up to 18 inches to the edge of the boundary there, to the boundary. So it really is a lot of building where otherwise you can enjoy a yard. I want to turn you for a minute to just the very most general thing in the entire zoning ordinance, which is its purpose, 1-3. The purpose of this zoning ordinance is to implement the comprehensive plan and to promote the public health. To facilitate orderly and harmonious development in the visual and historic character of our county. To improve the appearance of vehicle use areas and property abutting public rights of way. This whole property abuts the public right of way. To protect, preserve, and promote the aesthetic appeal, character, and value of the surrounding neighborhoods. And it goes on to mention historic districts and natural resources. We are not an H1 district, we don't have the zoning overlay, but we are recognized by the National Park Service as a National Register historic district. So a four car garage here would be very much out of keeping with the character of the neighborhood. highly unusual. There might be two or three that even extend to two stories throughout the whole Hollywood Terrace subdivision. It's not clear to me that the, you can look at the right and left side elevations, it's not clear to me that it doesn't exceed the 20 foot maximum height. It looks awful darn close. You've got eight feet and eight feet, and then the gable looks like about eight more feet, and then there's a couple feet here and there in between the wall plate or whatever. You only go to mid-gable, so it's eight plus eight plus four. That's already at your 20 feet. And with the wall plate and everything, I'd say they're awfully close to exceeding the height standard for a garage. The applicant, the owner already mentioned the size, the square footage of his principal structure. And you reckoned out the square footage of 21 times 40 times 2, the square footage of the principal structure. structure, let's do it the other way, the garage cannot exceed in size. The floor space of the garage cannot be greater than the half of the principal structure. This looks as though it is, because he said it was twice, you know, 20 by 40 roughly. And the principal structure doesn't come to double that. Okay, so I would say if we are trusting building inspection to remember all these small rules, particularly in the infill area and govern it properly, it probably needs a second look. Probably some things are not as they need to be. I put in, because you were curious about it, also the internal arrangements. There's a plan with four washer dryers and a large storage area. While it's true that it is said not to be intended for dwelling space, living space, I have to say that if I could put some of my storage in an accessory building, I would certainly enjoy the use of more living space in my principal structure. So I think it does enhance the utility and prolong the survival of a non-conforming use. It also is fully plumbed, it's got electricity. And the Delmont, the earlier BOA decision that the staff was guided by on Delmont Avenue just off for Sales Road, actually made a finding that it won't be used for living space because it doesn't have running water and plumbing. And they were going to have a little bit of solar electricity. I think they even made it a condition that it not be used for living space. there isn't much here that would prevent it being used for living space. And at that point, I would like to invite you to consider, it's a short piece with all the possible accessory uses that you can have in R1D. And really, just second, this sheet, single family residential. This is R1A, but R1D says by reference that all the accessory uses allowed in R1A are also allowed in R1D. So if we follow the staff's inclination to say a principal use is one thing and it's nonconforming and cannot be enlarged, But we can regard the accessory uses as separate, and they can be instituted and could be the sort of use that any R1D property might want to have. What you're doing is opening the door to number two, living quarters without cooking facilities and not rented, but living quarters for guests and employees. You could have swimming pools. You could have agricultural uses. You could have home offices, home occupations, and we've recently expanded what home occupations are permissible. You could have family child care for six children. I think the range of possible accessory uses allowed to R1D will help you understand that you really do need to consider the principal use when thinking whether an accessory use would constitute an expansion of the principal use. And in the case of a nonconformity, an impermissible expansion of use. I would argue that it certainly does. the site plan shows as i had said excessive vehicle use area that vehicle use area extends into the front yard which in r1d is 30 feet deep the zone is 30 feet deep and well, it's 30 feet. Oh, the side street side yard has a depth of 30 feet as well as the front yard. It comes to the same. Try not to get lost in the weeds. There are a lot of weeds. But I think I'd just like to turn back to the larger questions. I think with our new zoning, our new comp plan, we're really rethinking zoning. We're rethinking density. We're talking about design instead of how many people and so on. And this particular review actually touches on something else we're thinking about. What is an accessory use? So here you have an opportunity to think about, does allowing an accessory use expand the nonconformity or not? Ms. Clark, can we get a wrap up? Yes, ma'am, and then we'll, because I've got a bunch of questions for staff. I'm sure they're working for them. I guess what I would say is, as far as nonconformity goes, I think the very earliest case where zoning met up with a nonconforming use, one of the earliest in Kentucky is a Carrithers one, which I have noted for you on my summary handout. And that was a case where a so-called expansion was allowed. It was called an alteration rather than expansion. Poor Mr. Carrither's son had a milk company, and zoning was instituted, and suddenly he was in the middle of a residential area, but he was allowed to continue his use. Within a year or two of zoning being instituted, they changed the regulation for milk producers, and he was required to add sanitation facilities. And he did that by slightly enlarging and rearranging his existing plant. And he said, and I agree, and the courts agreed, he had a right to do that because he was essentially caught between two regulations. And he pointed to a passage in Kentucky statute that said zoning shall support the health and general welfare, And we have in our zoning ordinance on the very first page, which I have for you there, the 1-5 conflict of ordinance. And essentially it says, when your zoning ordinance is in conflict with, say, a health ordinance, the more restrictive shall control. That's how Mr. Carrithers got his enlargement, so called, which he called simply an alteration of his non-conforming use because it was required. And the court case goes into how he had a necessity and a duty to do that. There is no necessity or duty here. This is improving the property beyond what's needful or required by law. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark, appreciate it. Appreciate your time. Thank you. before i call up any of the parties back up for any rebuttals i would like to ask the staff some questions on number one if the applicant the home the property owner had come to you and asked to build an 800 square foot addition to the house for laundry would you would have considered that an expansion of the non-conforming use we would have had a similar conversation to the one that that we had to determine that this was allowable. It is hard to say. One of the previous cases did involve an attached porch and storage room. So in that situation, it was attached and that was approved. Without, you know, seeing a plan or knowing a little bit more about this hypothetical situation, I can't say that we would have said yes or no. I'm not sure I caught the full scope of your question, Brandon. If the applicant had come, the owner had come forward and set a plan out for you, and instead of being the 800 square feet above the garage, if they had said we want to build an 800 square foot expansion on the back of this property for the use of the tenants for laundry facilities, would that have been approved, or would you guys say no that's an expansion of a non-conforming use and that's not allowed is the focus here on just a laundry room not a garage with a laundry room i think it's on the laundry portion it's attached to the existing building or not attached or i guess my question is does it make a difference whether the laundry room if they would add it the building footprint and expand it at 800 square feet to build on a laundry facility onto the existing house okay attached Well, I think we would have had to look at it differently because that raises questions about whether the living areas that are directly associated with that are going to be expanded. Are there going to be more bedrooms, which we would have considered an expansion of a nonconforming use? So we would have had to take a much closer look at the design of it if it was attached to really make sure, is it really just going to be a storage or a laundry room? that kind of thing. So. And then, uh, is it even less than the infield and redevelopment, the apron? Well, we didn't look at the driveway width issue. Okay. That was not part of what we signed off. The way this happened is building inspection referred this application to us for a determination about whether or not we considered it an expansion of a nonconforming use. So that's what we focused on. We didn't get into a review of some of the related things like the driveway width. I'm sure part of the issue there is the existing driveway and parking area configuration. There's another possibility with building inspection that when they permit that kind of related activity, they focus on the actual use, not necessarily what would be normally restricted in the zone. But I don't have a definite answer about how that got permitted at the width that it did. It just wasn't part of our review. I have a question for staff as well. what may be more fundamental than it, what is nonconforming about this building or about the use of this building? Multifamily residential units, apartments are not permitted in the R1D zone. So there are no multifamily units in an R1D zone? Correct. An R1D zone is a single family residential zone, so you can't have a duplex or an apartment building. Okay. So my next question then. Just, they're not permitted to be constructed now in an R1D zone, but much like this situation. This one existed before the zoning. There's a number of probably in the R1D zone around this area of multifamily within that R1D zone that were there. That's why they're nonconforming. I'm interested in the staff report, I guess it's the fifth bullet point down talking about the cases. and the summary of those cases seems to be, as you quoted here, these two cases have concluded that a nonconforming use is not enlarged if the fundamental purpose, the characteristics of the building, and the activities remain the same. So those three things seem to be a summary of what those two cases says. And we've run into the Romero case before on other questions involving nonconforming uses and the Bourbon County versus Brown case as well. So my question is, the activities refer to the activities in using this property, the nonconforming use of the property. But the activities are going to be increased because now they're going to be having laundry facilities in a building that had no laundry facilities before. So isn't that last statement, doesn't it bring into question whether or not this proposed addition is an expansion of the activities? Because the activities are not going to remain the same. There's going to be laundry. I think that next sentence in that paragraph there that is quoted from the previous staff report where it says that staff's assessment is that the proposed accessory structure meets this test because it does not alter the fundamental purpose of the nonconforming use and does not intensify the degree of nonconformity taking place on the property. I think that that case was quite similar to this one, and I think that we would stand by that statement today. Okay. It does not intensify the degree or the nonconformity, but the nonconformity is the use. With the fundamental use being the apartment units. Going back to that no additional dwellings or additional bedrooms are being added. Right. So you're looking. We do not see this as an expansion of the fundamental use as an apartment. Fundamental use being dwelling units, multiple dwelling units in a single building. which is the fundamental use. But so, I mean, it seems to me that Mr. Young makes a fair argument that the addition of this building with additional uses utilized by the occupants of this building does increase the intensity of the nonconformity. At least that's my interpretation. But that's his interpretation, I think. A lot of this is arguable, but the only way that we get around all of these excruciatingly detailed interpretations is to always come back to focusing on what makes it nonconforming. And that was my original question was what is nonconforming about this building? and it's the use of the building as a multiple occupant dwelling. Okay. All right. And I see your point, Jim. Thank you. Any more questions from staff on the board? All right. Mr. Young, would you like to say anything else in summary before I close off? i'm just going to ask again um a request that you approve my appeal on the grounds that this is indeed goes a considerable way on furthering the use and certainly does ensure the survival of this non-conforming use and even like i said even if you disagree with that you have to agree that the dimensions of this proposal are completely out of proportion with the neighborhood and out of proportion with the actual regulations for infill and redevelopment for Lexington thank you thank you mr. young I'm gonna go ahead and close the public portion of course if any board members have questions for many of the parties today we can bring them up I have questions so now it's open for discussion or for a motion it's up to you guys I have a question I guess the clarification of what we're voting on or not voting on so if we make a motion to disapprove the appeal and we're in agreement and everybody would vote yes and that's the end of it but if we were to I guess you make motion to approve his appeal if we didn't it will go back to if we do if we do a motion to disapprove the appeal that would mean that the permit as issued was proper and that the property owner can go forward with his construction of the project if we move to approve the appeal at that point it would go back to building inspections and miss Jones I guess at that point they could submit a new application for a new that would more conform with our ruling well a couple things obviously your decision is gonna have to go back to building inspection either way since it's an appeal of their decision so they'll know how you decide it. Once you all make a decision, either party has a right within 30 days to take that decision to circuit court. So that's their responsibility to consider how they want to proceed with that in terms of, you know, if they feel like they have a permit from building inspection and you all say you all disapprove this appeal, if the other party wanted to appeal, it would be up to the person that owns this property to decide whether or not they want to take the risk to continue to go forward or not. So with the 30-day provision to appeal, a decision either way by you all, by either party, is in the statute. But you are correct that a disapproval of the appeal would mean you are agreeing with the decision of building inspection that in fact the the existing structure which houses the apartments is a non-conforming use and that the garage is an accessory structure that's allowed in this zone and therefore the permit was okay that's what they decided so disapproval would affirm that decision an approval of the appeal would say that decision was incorrect and you would need different findings. That was my question. If we don't concur with the staff's recommendation or the building inspections recommendation, would we need additional findings of fact or? Well, you would need additional findings to support why you're making that decision because the only findings that you have here are to to disapprove it to disapprove the appeal so um what i would suggest is if there are members who feel like they would possibly move to approve the appeal then we would take probably want to take a recess so you can work with miss jones to come up with your findings so that they be based for your motion. Right. And you may want, up to you, to discuss what those reasons are in terms of now that you've heard every... So that the testimony, including the board members' discussion, would be part of the record. Correct. It'd be a basis for one way or the other. Right. Depending on how the vote went. Correct. Okay. In the spirit of discussion, I'm comfortable, I feel like, with the garage portion. It's that laundry portion and the significance of it that gives me a little pause. But I don't know that I could overturn what the building, you know, what they're saying. But that's where. Well, that's our job is to figure out whether they made the right call. Just getting a sense from body language from the other board members, I think that the laundry room on top of the garage feels more like, even if it's not connected to the building, feels more like living space use of a residential unit than otherwise. And so I can see it's not having uncomfort. Yeah, I think, in fact, I'd go even further. I think that the building of the garage enhances the use of this property as an apartment building. So, I mean, I've read the cases, I understand the cases, I understand the arguments, and I understand the staff's reasoning looking at it from the larger, from the bigger picture. But this is a .2-acre piece of property in a highly residential area, and they're proposing to build a substantial, in effect, an accessory building, which building proposes to contain additional uses for the apartment dwelling units, which I feel enhance the utility of the nonconforming use. So I think Mr. Young and Ms. Clark have made compelling arguments for approving the appeal. And if approving the appeal would require additional findings, I think we need to take a recess and talk about that. So that's my feeling. I would agree with that. I'll say before we take a recess, though, any other board members want to make a comment on the record, and then I'll recess this. I think my comment would be, I think, in spirit of discussion, we would, you know, the garage is one thing. I think the storage and the two stairways to two different rooms and laundry really reads to me future apartments. And I do think that that is the concerning part of this plan, and I do think it would definitely increase or enlarge the scope of this, and I would be moved to more approve the appeal. And I think, quite frankly, that it's probably, there's some merit in the property owner's request to enhance the property and improve this property by building a multi-car garage and building laundry facilities, because if there are no laundry facilities on the property, then having laundry facilities would improve the utility of the property and the use by the residents. I agree that that's a good idea. The problem is that this is a nonconforming use. That's the only problem. So I think his motives were good, but the fact that it's a non-conforming use limits what we can do with the property. And I think additional parking that's protected from the weather and additional uses being added on, like laundry facilities, unfortunately adds to and increases the utility of the non-conforming use. And I think Mr. Young, Ms. Clark made valid points, and the staff could not answer on whether or not the overall plans themselves conform with the infill redevelopment requirements. Not that that was directly appealed, I'm not sure, but it was definitely brought up in testimony today. Any other comments? Yes. I was just going to ask for a recess. That sounds good to me. We will recess, and I'm going to go ahead and make it a realistic 10 minutes this time. Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and gavel us back in from recess. and we are still on the case of plnboa 1974 jeremy young at this point does anyone on the board ready to make a motion mr chair i'm ready to make a motion relative to plnboa 19-74 the appeal by jeremy young i move the approval of the appeal to reverse the decision of building inspection to issue a commercial accessory building permit for the following reasons. A, the existing non-conforming use in apartment building housing for dwelling units will be increased in scope and extend or enlarge the use of the dwelling units by providing the dwellers in the apartments with the additional living uses of laundry and storage and garages. B, construction of the accessory structure encourages the survival of the non-conforming use, which is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance intent in Article 4-2. So move. Thank you. Second. I'll second. Mr. Clark seconds. Any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, I'll put a vote. All right, this appeal. The appeal has been approved. That will end that item on the agenda. The next item we have is any items that any board members wish to present at this time. Mr. Chairman, I've got something I'd like to present. Let me get to my notes. I'd like to recommend to the staff or to planning and zoning that our continuing education include perhaps an overall or an overview of the zoning ordinance that occasionally come up that we have to deal with. We rely to a great deal on the staff reports and they're quoting the ordinances, but as far as what's contained and permitted within various zones, I know the zoning ordinance is fairly complicated, But it wouldn't hurt us to have a refresher course every couple of years, two or three years, just to be a refresher on the zoning ordinance itself. So I'm just making that recommendation or suggestion. Thank you. Let me second that. But rather than doing some of the looking at videos, things that really don't apply to us very much, that would be more helpful in terms of our education. Thank you very much. I see. Our case, that case was finished. Did you have some explanation to them about what this means? might be appropriate from the law department. That sounds like a perfect suggestion. Basically what the decision means is that their determination of the appeal was that building inspections issuance of the permit was an error because it did actually expand a non-conforming use. So you have options under the ordinance as to how you want to proceed. you can go back to building inspection, you can pursue an appeal in court if you don't like that result. I'm assuming we will relate this decision back to building inspection. Is that how we do that normally, Jim? It's been so rare that I'm not sure. I think we should make them aware of the decision so if it comes back they'll know what was the decision here. and that doesn't preclude other alternatives but just that particular permit issuance this board found to be an error so it's invalidated invalid yes real quickly mr atkins I've got a date here, a forward date here, so I'm going to Zoom. But the predicament is the project's already started per the permit, so we'll probably need to get, maybe somebody could email me some clarification as to how to proceed because obviously the building's already started. So, thanks. Yes, I understand. Who would we direct them to? Well, you've got 30 days to appeal a decision of the board. So be aware of that. Thanks for your time. I've got to go pick up kids. Sure. Thanks, gentlemen. Sure, Ms. Clark. This is really just a question. Is it within your authority to ask for the, I guess you'd call it the abatement or the removal of the structure? Wait one second. I mean, that's why I say I think we need to relate it back to building inspection, that their permit's no longer valid and then they'll have to follow whatever when they don't have and it may be something they're going to have to take a look at as well when they no longer have a valid permit you know they have to figure out what to do about that sometimes that can be figured out in conjunction with the property owner and sometimes not but in either case they should not continue with work i would not that would be not advisable okay yeah so um and i uh okay so it takes care of i think that case i appreciate your suggestion mr marks and of course ms jones as always um okay so the next item we want to present is staff has our meeting and filing schedule for 2020. I think it follows the same as this year. What do you have copies of it? Okay okay. Yes it does follow the same the second Monday of the month at 1 30. After all that. Oh I was just playing with I thought you'd already recorded the vote I was just playing with the vote. yeah his vote was still yes in that last case i was just learning i was doing some self-education on the system okay so um that's question is do we want to go ahead and do we need to can we adopt this today would mr marks like us to adopt this today if you're willing or would you rate would prefer us to wait to like december or january like we normally oh we'd much prefer that you adopted today mr chair i move we adopt the calendar as presented to us today so we have first and the second any discussion i have a question oh yes of course do any of these dates fall on holidays as far as i'm aware we checked in there were no holidays the second second Monday tends to not be a holiday. Although we did fall on Veterans Day this year. I think the only two is Columbus, Indigenous Peoples Day and also Veterans Day. Do we have an issue with that? Well, I'm not sure. Without having reviewed this list in detail, I don't know if I have an issue with it. So if we vote to approve it today, I'm going to vote no because I want to check my calendar. Well, we can postpone it until next month. Jim will not enjoy us postponing it indefinitely. I understand. I just like to. And I'm hoping this year we could change the time again for you, Tommy. This is to be our third time in a row. What are we changing? I'm just teasing. No, I'm just teasing. I like having it at 1.30. Yes. So hopefully we'll keep it at 1.30, but yes, if you're not comfortable yet today, I'd say let's wait until next month. Just to accommodate me. In that case, I withdraw my motion. Thank you, Mr. Clark. I appreciate it. Thank you. Now, one thing I do want to remind. I'll put it on top of the stack. In staff, and I were talking about this, when we will have officer elections. I cannot recall. Do we do that in December or January normally? I think we've done it in January. Okay. So, well, that came it up. Looks like Columbus Day falls on October 12th, which I believe probably is one of those dates. It's not. No? Okay. I was able to Google that one real quick. And then what about Veterans Day next year? Even though you could wear your hat, Tommy. Wednesday, November 11th. Yeah, that's what I thought. I think that's the only one we'll hit. Well, it was the first fall. Hearing date. Yeah, but the... Hearing date, the last fall. Last fall. Oh, it's filing dates. Sorry. Okay, so it would be on Columbus Indigenous Peoples Day, but it would not be on Veterans Day next year. Right. Yeah. Okay, well, we'll let Tommy look it over. I just want to remind everyone, if they want to take over the gavel, the opportunity will come up very shortly. by all means. Throw your hat in the ring if you want it. And with that being said, I will adjourn us. Our next meeting will be November... Oh. It was withdrawn. Yeah, we're not going to do that. And our next meeting is November 11, 2019 at 1.30 p.m. I look forward to seeing everybody. Have a great Halloween. Thank you. Thank you. 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