# Board of Adjustment - December 9, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · December 9, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4915 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4915?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-12-09 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 6, 2026 - **Length**: 17,799 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on December 9, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed six agenda items during the session, including variance requests, conditional use permits, and an administrative appeal. Throughout the meeting, the board conducted eight motions and votes while hearing six public comments from community members. Of the six cases presented, four were approved, one was denied, and one was tabled for future consideration, demonstrating active deliberation on various zoning and land use matters affecting the Lexington community. ## Attendance The Board meeting on December 9, 2019 had six members present and one absent. **Present:** • Branden Gross • Raquel Carter • Joan Whitman • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Chad Needham **Absent:** • Janice Meyer **Late:** • None With six of seven Board members in attendance, the meeting had a quorum to conduct official business. ## Votes and Decisions The Board of Adjustment took action on eight cases during the December 9, 2019 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Postponements:** - **PLN-BOA-19-00082**: Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Raquel Carter, to postpone the variance request by Mariyana K. & Diyan R. Hristov. The motion passed unanimously 6-0 with all members voting in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham. - **PLN-BOA-19-00087**: Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Joan Whitman, to postpone the conditional use request by Community Ventures Properties, LLC. The motion passed unanimously 6-0 with the same members voting in favor. **Withdrawal:** - **PLN-BOA-19-00080**: The administrative appeal by LexLive Entertainment Complex was withdrawn without a formal vote. **Approvals:** - **PLN-BOA-19-00084**: Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Harry Clarke, to approve the variance request by Altorac Farm, LLC. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to three conditions outlined by staff. - **PLN-BOA-19-00083**: Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Raquel Carter, to approve the conditional use request by Dunkin' Donuts. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to three conditions outlined by staff. - **PLN-BOA-19-00086**: Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Thomas Glover, to approve the conditional use request by The Mission Church of Lexington. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to six conditions outlined by staff. - **PLN-BOA-19-00085**: Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Chad Needham, to approve the administrative appeal by Matt Burton. The motion passed 5-0, subject to five conditions outlined by staff. Voting members were Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham. **Denial:** - **PLN-BOA-19-00071**: Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Harry Clarke, to disapprove the conditional use request by James B. McGee. The motion failed with a 5-0 vote, with Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, and Thomas Glover voting in favor of the denial. ## Public Comment The Board received public comments from six speakers addressing two main topics during the December 9, 2019 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Junkyard Opposition** Four speakers voiced opposition to a proposed junkyard development: • **Nicole Horstman** expressed concerns about the negative impact on VFW Post 680, citing increased vermin and potential health hazards from the junkyard operations. • **Jacob Walbourn**, representing Winmar Corporation, raised concerns about environmental impacts and the facility's negative influence on future development in the area. • **Vance Evans**, owner of a nearby storage facility, highlighted issues with water runoff and rodent problems that could affect his business operations. • **Gary Young** spoke about water quality concerns and rodent issues that would impact the Westrock box making facility. **Parking Lot Debate** Two speakers presented opposing views on a parking lot proposal: • **Jean Scott**, representing the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association, opposed the permanent use of a lot for parking purposes. She advocated for limiting any parking use to temporary arrangements only. • **Rhett Constantine**, owner of Old School Coffee, supported the parking lot proposal, explaining the need for employee parking to facilitate business growth at Dudley Square. The public comments reflected community concerns about environmental impacts, business operations, and neighborhood preservation, with speakers representing various stakeholder groups including veterans organizations, corporations, local businesses, and neighborhood associations. ## Contested Items Two agenda items drew significant community opposition during the December 9, 2019 Board meeting. **Junkyard Operation by James B. McGee** The proposed junkyard operation by James B. McGee faced strong community resistance from residents and local business owners. Community members raised environmental concerns about the potential impact of the junkyard on the surrounding area. Opposition also centered on how the operation would affect nearby businesses and residential neighborhoods, with speakers expressing worry about property values and quality of life impacts. **Parking Lot Use by Matt Burton** Matt Burton's request for parking lot use generated opposition from the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood group took a clear position against permanent parking lot designation, instead advocating that any approval should be limited to temporary use only. The association's opposition reflected broader community concerns about preserving the character and appropriate land use in the historic neighborhood area. Both items highlighted tensions between individual property use requests and community interests, with organized neighborhood groups and concerned residents actively participating in the public comment process to voice their objections to the proposed uses. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting's contested items discussion.* ## Variance request by Mariyana K. & Diyan R. Hristov [timestamp: 00:00] The Board considered case PLN-BOA-19-00082, a variance request submitted by Mariyana K. & Diyan R. Hristov to increase the allowable height of a fence located in their front yard from the current 4-foot limit to 6 feet. Branden Gross presented the case to the Board during the discussion portion of the meeting. However, the specific details of the property location, justification for the variance request, and any staff recommendations were not fully addressed during this meeting session. The Board ultimately decided not to proceed with a full hearing on this variance request at the December 9, 2019 meeting. Instead, the item was tabled and postponed to the next scheduled Board meeting to allow for additional preparation or information gathering. No formal vote was taken on the merits of the variance request itself, as the matter was deferred before reaching that stage of consideration. The postponement allows the applicants and staff additional time to prepare materials or address any preliminary concerns that may have arisen. The case will be rescheduled for consideration at a future Board of Appeals meeting, where the full details of the variance request, including the specific circumstances requiring the increased fence height and compliance with variance criteria, will be presented and debated. ## Variance request by Altorac Farm, LLC [timestamp: 00:00] The Board considered case PLN-BOA-19-00084, a variance request submitted by Altorac Farm, LLC to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 250 feet. David Baugh served as the key speaker presenting information about this variance request to the Board members. The discussion centered on Altorac Farm, LLC's need to modify the standard setback requirements for their property. The applicant sought to reduce the mandatory front yard setback by 50 feet, from the standard 300-foot requirement down to 250 feet. Following their review and discussion of the request, the Board voted to approve the variance. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the applicant must meet, though the exact details of these conditions were not specified in the available materials. The Board's decision to grant the variance with conditions suggests they found the request reasonable while ensuring appropriate safeguards or requirements remain in place to address any potential concerns related to the reduced setback. ## Conditional use request by Dunkin' Donuts [timestamp: 00:00] The Board reviewed application PLN-BOA-19-00083, a conditional use request by Dunkin' Donuts to establish drive-through facilities for a new restaurant location. Timothy Markham presented the request on behalf of the applicant. The proposal involved adding drive-through service capabilities to the planned restaurant, which required conditional use approval under local zoning regulations. The Board discussed the application and considered the operational aspects of the proposed drive-through facility, including traffic flow, site design, and compliance with municipal requirements for drive-through establishments. Following their review and discussion of the conditional use request, the Board approved the application with conditions. The approval allows Dunkin' Donuts to proceed with establishing drive-through facilities at the proposed restaurant location, subject to meeting the specified conditions set forth by the Board. The conditional approval ensures that the drive-through operations will comply with local zoning standards and operational requirements while allowing the business to provide the requested service to customers. ## Conditional use request by The Mission Church of Lexington [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00086, a conditional use request submitted by The Mission Church of Lexington to expand the parking lot at their existing church facility. Elizabeth McCullough served as the key speaker presenting information about this request during the meeting discussion. The proposal involved expanding the church's current parking capacity to better serve the congregation and accommodate church activities. The request was considered under the conditional use provisions that allow for modifications to existing religious facilities. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use request was approved. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the church must meet in implementing the parking lot expansion. The approval allows The Mission Church of Lexington to proceed with their parking lot expansion project, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the Board of Adjustment. This decision enables the church to address their parking needs while ensuring the expansion meets local zoning and development standards. ## Conditional use request by James B. McGee [timestamp: 00:00] The Board considered application PLN-BOA-19-00071, a conditional use request submitted by James B. McGee to operate a junkyard in a Heavy Industrial Zone. James B. McGee presented his request to the Board during the discussion portion of the meeting. The application sought approval for junkyard operations within the designated Heavy Industrial zoning district. Following review and deliberation, the Board denied McGee's conditional use request. The denial was based on environmental and community concerns that were raised during the evaluation process. The specific nature of these concerns was not detailed in the available meeting materials, but they were sufficient for the Board to determine that the proposed junkyard operation should not be approved at this location. The Board's decision represents a rejection of the conditional use permit that would have allowed the junkyard to operate within the Heavy Industrial Zone, despite such zones typically accommodating industrial activities. ## Administrative appeal by Matt Burton [timestamp: 00:00] The Board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-19-00085, an administrative appeal submitted by Matt Burton. The appeal concerned a request to re-establish a legal non-conforming use for a parking lot on property located within the defined Infill and Redevelopment Area. Matt Burton served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting his case to the Board regarding the parking lot use on his property. The specific details of Burton's presentation and the nature of his appeal were discussed during the meeting proceedings. The Board reviewed the administrative decision that had prompted Burton's appeal, examining the circumstances surrounding the legal non-conforming use designation for the parking lot. The property's location within the Infill and Redevelopment Area added complexity to the consideration, as these areas typically have specific development standards and requirements. Following discussion and consideration of the appeal, the Board approved Burton's request to re-establish the legal non-conforming use for the parking lot. However, the approval came with conditions, though the specific conditions imposed were not detailed in the available meeting summary. The approval allows Burton to continue operating the parking lot under its legal non-conforming status, despite its location within the Infill and Redevelopment Area where such uses might otherwise not be permitted under current zoning regulations. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-19-00082** — postponed (6-0): Postpone variance request by Mariyana K. & Diyan R. Hristov - **PLN-BOA-19-00087** — postponed (6-0): Postpone conditional use request by Community Ventures Properties, LLC - **PLN-BOA-19-00080** — withdrawn (0-0): Withdraw administrative appeal by LexLive Entertainment Complex - **PLN-BOA-19-00084** — passed (6-0): Approve variance request by Altorac Farm, LLC - **PLN-BOA-19-00083** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use request by Dunkin' Donuts - **PLN-BOA-19-00086** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use request by The Mission Church of Lexington - **PLN-BOA-19-00071** — failed (5-0): Disapprove conditional use request by James B. McGee - **PLN-BOA-19-00085** — passed (5-0): Approve administrative appeal by Matt Burton --- ## Full transcript It's the right time to rock the nine-way Jingle bell time is a swell time To go riding in a one-horse sleigh Yeah, jingle horse, tickle your feet Jingle around the clock Mix and mingle in the jingling feet That's the jingle bell, that's the jingle bell That's the jingle bell rock Jingle bell rock Hang on the mistletoe I'm gonna get to know you better This Christmas And as we trim the tree How much fun it's gonna be together, well This Christmas The fireside is blazing bright We're caroling through the night And this Christmas will be A very special Christmas for me Presents and cards are here My world is filled with cheer and you This Christmas And as I look around Your eyes outshine the town, they do This Christmas The fireside is blazing bright We're caroling through the night And this Christmas will be A very special Christmas for me If you're with me If you're with me © BF-WATCH TV 2021 Good afternoon, everyone. That's a little loud. Can you guys hear me? All right. I'd like to welcome everyone today for the December 9, 2019 Board of Adjustment meeting. What I will do is I will cover some housecleaning items first. The first item I'm going to do is the staff has sent out the minutes from last month's meeting. And those have been circulated. Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review those? OK. Does anyone have any proposed revisions? Or if not, does someone want to move for them to be approved? So move. Do I have a first for Mr. Clark, a second for Ms. Whitman? Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I will put it to a vote. I'll wait for the. Remember, we moved to electronic voting. Yes. Ms. Whitman did. Motion carries. We're missing Ms. Carter. There we go. The second item is in the back. If you plan on speaking today, if you can make sure you've signed in in the back. Just so that way our secretary, when she is having our minutes prepared by staff, has all the names spelled correctly. But sometimes it's hard for them to hear on the tape. Next item is your cell phones. If you have a cell phone, please turn that on silent so it doesn't ring during the hearing. Today, if you plan on speaking after you've signed in, I'm going to swear you in. But it looks like we've got a couple people signing in, so I will wait. I'll do that in a second. What we'll do is I'll go through the agenda today. I'll make sure the applicant is present for the case to be heard. And then if it is present, we'll just see if there's any opposition. If there is opposition, then what we'll do is see if there's a chance for you to work out any issues. But then we'll have all the non-opposed cases heard first. From time to time, I will put time limits on speakers in case there are things that go wrong to ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to speak and to keep everything running efficiently. Do not approach us or the podium unless you've been invited to speak. I will recognize you. Do we have any letters today for opposition or in support on any cases? We have one letter of concern for PLN BOA 19-86, the Mission Church of Lexington. We have a couple of support letters for item number 4, 19-87, Community Ventures Properties. We have opposition letters for PLN BOA 19-85, Matt Burton. And I believe we also have a couple of letters for on page 1, 19-71, James B. McGee. Okay. Okay, and then lastly, if you plan on speaking today, if you could rise, I'll have you sworn in right now. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay, so what I'm going to do now is I'm going to run through the items on the agenda. The first item is a variance appeal. It's PLN BOA 19-82, Mariana and Donyon Hurstoff. Did I get that even close to right? They are not present today. They have requested that we postpone their application. They've been traveling and weren't able to be here for the meeting today, so they would like to postpone until next month. Was anyone here, and this is related to property at 3376 Scottish Trace? Okay, well, no one is here. There's been a request to postpone this hearing until our January 13, 2020, 1.30 p.m. meeting. Is there any discussion on that? Or if not, since there's no opposition, I'll hear a motion to postpone. Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLN BOA 19-82. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we'll vote once it comes up on the screen. The next item on the – oh, Bobcat, is there any more postponements? Oh, come on up. Jacob. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. If I could turn your attention to page 2, item 4. That's PLN BOA 19-87 for Community Ventures. I think we're ultimately going to end up having to withdraw this application because of some structural issues with the properties, but they're still investigating that, so to give them a full chance, I would request a two-month postponement. That gets us through the holidays, gives them a chance to do the work they need to do. Again, I anticipate we'll probably withdraw this, but I'll have a firm answer by the February meeting. I've got it February 10. I think that's correct. Yeah, February 10, so the request from the applicant is postponement to February 10. This is for PLN BOA 19-87, a Community Ventures property regarding 244 and 248 Race Street. Any discussion here on that matter? Okay. Hearing none, then anyone from the board have any comments to a two-month postponement for this matter? If not, then I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend postponement of PLN BOA 19-87 Community Ventures property for a two-month postponement. Do I have a second? I second. Ms. Whitman seconds. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I will put it to a vote. Motion passes. Is this the only thing on the dock today? I've got an opposition, so I'll take that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, you've got one? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm also on page 2 at the bottom. Item E1, PLN BOA 19-00080, Lux Live Entertainment Complex. You all heard this last month, the first three parts of it, and approved it. We carried the 4 and 5 over to this month. I have put in a letter withdrawing our application for items 4 and 5. Just wanted to note that for the record. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Again, since it's a withdrawal, we don't need to take any action at this time. And then you have one at the end, so you'll be here for a little bit. Okay. Any other items to postpone or withdraw at this time? Okay. Well, hearing none, then what I will do is I will call the remaining cases. The first one is number 2 on page 1, PLN BOA 1984. It's a variance appeal regarding Altoric Farm LLC related to 5695 Sulphur Well Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. You don't need to come up yet, but you're going to be the first one heard. Potentially. Is there anyone here that wants to speak on this application? This is for the Sulphur Well Road property. All right. Since there's no opposition, you'll be the first one called. But I'm going to go through the rest of the docket, so just give me one more second. You are ready to go, and I love your enthusiasm. So the next items are going to be our conditional use appeals. The first one is PLN BOA 19-71, James B. McGee's property regarding 130 Industrial Avenue. Applicant present? Is that yours? Okay. Oh, okay. Perfect. Is there anyone here? This one has been marked for disapproval by the staff. Is there anyone else here on this matter? And we have a bunch of opposition. So this will be the first case to be heard. What? Oh, the first contested case to be heard. Sorry. The first contested case to be heard. The next item is on page 2, number 2, PLN BOA 19-83, Duncan Donuts, 2213 Versailles Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here on this application? Anyone else? Okay. Hearing none, we'll put you on the unopposed docket. Next item is number 3 on page 2, PLN BOA 19-86, the Mission Church of Lexington, regarding 3288 Beaver Creek Drive. Is the applicant present? Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on behalf of this matter? This is on Beaver Creek Drive. All right. We'll mark you down as unopposed. Number 4, PLN 19-87, has been postponed for two months. On the administrative appeals, PLN BOA 19-80, LexLive Entertainment Complex, has withdrawn. I'm now on page 3, PLN BOA 19-85, Matt Burton, regarding 421 and 425 South Mill Street. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition to this matter? This is South Mill Street. All right. Well, I'll put you on the— Ma'am, are you here for the South Mill Street? Okay. Are you planning on speaking? Okay. Then we'll put you down on the docket to be heard. Okay. So, what we'll do is, to the extent that anyone has a matter that you think it behooves you to talk with the opposition before we call the hearing to work any controversies, I recommend you guys could step out in the hallway and do that. If you don't think that would be fruitful, I'm not going to make you go through that exercise. The first unopposed case is PLN BOA 19-84, Altoric Farm, LLC, regarding 5695 Silverwell Road. Come on up, sir, and please state your name for the record. Dave Ball. What was that? Dave Ball. Okay. Mr. Ball, are you the owner of the company? No, we are. What's your relationship? What's that? I'm sorry? Are you the owner of the LLC? I am. Okay. Staff has recommended approval, Mr. Ball, based upon the reasons in the report, but they've made that approval subject to three conditions. Have you seen those? No. They came with your report. They're probably your recommendation. Yeah. Okay. You agree you can abide by those? Yes. Okay. With that being said, the applicant has agreed to abide by the three conditions set forth in the report. Any questions from anyone on the board for the applicant while he is here today? Hearing none, then the chair would entertain a motion. I move to approve PLN-BOA-19-84, Altoric Farm LLC's request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 250 feet in an agricultural rural AR zone on property located at 5695 Sulphur Well Road, based on the following reasons outlined by staff and subject to the three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Second. Mr. Clark seconds. Is there any discussion on the application of this motion? Hearing none, then I will call the vote. Okay. Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. The next item I have on the docket with no opposition is Dunkin' Donuts' application. This is for PLN-BOA-19-83. It's a conditional use for 2213 Bursells Road. Sir, come on up. And please state your name for the record. Timothy Markham. Mr. Markham, staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the three conditions. Have you seen those? I have. And you agree to abide by those? I do. Okay. And let me look here. I think... Who's the actual applicant on this one? Because it says Dunkin' Donuts, but... It should probably be under Lexington Donuts Corporation. Lexington Donuts? Yeah. That's the property owner? Yes. Okay. All right. I just want to make sure the record shows that we've got you binding somebody other than the Dunkin' Donuts Corporation. Yeah. Okay. So you are an owner of the company that owns the real estate? Correct. Okay. And so you've agreed to abide by those three conditions. Are there any questions for Mr. Markham by the board? And if not, does somebody want to make a motion? Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN-BOA-19-83, Dunkin' Donuts, request for a conditional use to establish drive-through facilities for a new restaurant in a neighborhood business zone on property located at 2313 Versailles Road for the reasons outlined in the staff report and subject to the three conditions in that report. Do I have a second? Ms. Carter seconds. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. Congratulations. It's passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're very welcome. The next item I have listed for no opposition is PLN-BOA-19-86, the Mission Church of Lexington. This is for 3288 Beaver Creek Drive. I believe we have correspondence from a citizen, one, so it shouldn't take us long to review that. Come on up, ma'am. Yes. Please state your name for the record. Elizabeth McCullough. Ms. McCullough. Are you a member of the church? I am, and I'm also a transportation engineer laying out the site plan for the parking lot. Okay. And so you are authorized to bind the church today? Yes. Okay. The staff has recommended approval. That approval is based upon six conditions. Have you seen those? Yes, I have. And you're agreeable to you and your client to abide by those? Yes. Okay, perfect. Well, in that case, give us a second to look at this letter. Is this in support? It's in concern. In concern. Okay. Give us one second. If you want to have a seat, it shouldn't take us longer than a minute or two. Okay. Okay. Come on. Mark it. Okay. Okay. Ms. McCullough, do you want to come back up? Yeah. I guess in the letter, the citizen spoke well of the church, and she laid out two kind of concerns. One was, I guess there's some landscaping maybe that's overgrown. I can't tell, but maybe around sidewalks. Do you have a sidewalk that runs that has shrubbery? Sidewalk with shrubbery? I don't know. She said something about bushes and kids poking their eyes out. So I can only imagine it's somewhere where kids would be walking. Along the edge of the property, there is a lot of overgrowth. It wasn't maintained very well. We plan to clear out what we need to but maintain the amount of landscaping. Screening? Yeah, to meet the vehicular screening. So that was one item. So if you guys have plans for that, I would recommend moving forward with those. We're not going to put that as a condition today. Okay. But, well, maybe Mr. I have a question. Staff commented at the end of the project description, says special care should be taken to maintain any existing vegetation along this property line. And I wasn't sure which property line staff was talking about, whether it was the. Particularly along the property line that is shared by the single family residences at the rear of the property. And I agree with you about that. And my question is, well, would the staff, how would the staff feel about making that a recommended condition? There is a 10-foot easement there. Yeah, I think it is covered within the requirements of Article 16 and 18. 18 is with regard to landscaping in particular. Sorry, which one? Condition number four that references being landscaped and screened. The requirements of Article 18 specifically are with regard to landscaping. So that should take care of that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. So we would have to maintain a continuous hedge along the parking lot there. And that's your intent? Yes. Okay. Thanks. May I ask a couple of questions? What is the existing vegetation along the borders now? What's there now? Are there trees or just bushes? There's some trees. It's all mainly overgrown honeysuckle and things like that, yeah. What are you going to do with the trees? We don't plan on doing anything with the trees. Okay. One more quick question. I know that you intend to build a new building or an extended building. Where is that going? In front of the property. In front of the property toward Beaver Creek? Yes. All right. And we also want to clear out on the backside of the property, that thin stretch, as much as we can back there, because there's been concerns about homeless people camping back there. All right. And just make it a safer area for everyone. Good. Thank you. Any other comments for staff or this applicant? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN BOA 19-86, the Mission Church of Lexington's request for a conditional use for a place of religious assembly in order to expand the parking lot in an existing church in a single-family residential zone on property located at 3288 Beaver Creek Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the six listed conditions. Second. I'll second. Mr. Glover seconds. Any discussion on the motion? Well, hearing none, I'll call to a vote as soon as it pops up on your screen. Your application is approved. Have a great Christmas holiday. You too. So now we have finished up all the items with no opposition, so we are getting ready to begin the fund cycle, which is the ones in which staff has either recommended approval and or you have audience members from the citizenry who wants to speak on behalf of this application. So the first one I have set to be heard is a conditional use appeal. What we will do is I've noticed the applicant is present. In this instance, the staff has recommended disapproval, so I'll have the staff come first and give us their case. And then once we have that, I cannot recall, is this the one with lots of opposition? If so, raise your hand. Now keep. So I'm sorry. Once again, if you could raise your hands if you're in opposition and you plan on coming to the podium today. So we have one, two. Yes, one, two, three, four. So we have five. Okay. So what we'll do is once we call the case, we'll have staff come up, give a short presentation. Then we'll have the applicant come up, give his presentation. Then we'll open it up to people from the audience to give their either opposition or proponent statement. And what I like to do is for people coming up from the audience is I just request that to the extent someone else has already made a point, you don't necessarily need to remake the point given we have such a small crowd today. I won't come out of the gate setting time limits, but I would like you to keep your comments to three to five minutes if at all possible during that time period. So with that being said, this is PLM BOA 1971, James B. McGee, regarding 130 Lyle Industrial Avenue, and I will have staff come up and give us a quick summary of their report. This application was before you in October and was postponed to today. At that time we didn't hear any of the case. We just moved for postponement. This is an application for a conditional use permit to operate a junkyard in an I-2 zone at 130 Lyle Industrial Avenue. This application is the result of complaints coming into code enforcement and code enforcement seeking support from the Division of Planning and from Zoning Compliance due to the operation of an illegal business here. The applicant is operating a dumpster rental business on this property. He has 80 roll-off dumpsters and three roll-off trucks, which are taken to demolition sites and for use by contractors and private citizens. The dumpsters are filled up and then returned to the site where they are. Either certain materials are dumped out and metal is sorted to be sold to recyclers. Otherwise, the materials are taken elsewhere. Since much of the debris is coming from demolition sites, there are a number of concerns regarding what that type of debris is, and then there are a number of environmental and water quality concerns. We have been in touch with the Division of Water Quality, and they've indicated that they have concerns regarding certain types of total suspended solids, TSS, which is a pollutant of concern in stormwater runoff. The Kentucky Division of Waste Management has also cited this property for not being properly licensed. They were given until December 16th to file that paperwork with the state. As far as I know, that has not been done as of this time, but, again, they do still have until the 16th. Staff is recommending disapproval of this application because of the potential negative impacts on the environment, and the applicant has not provided us with any information regarding attempts to mitigate any sort of pollution or runoff. Without having that information, we initially recommended postponement, and since we continue to not receive any new updated information, we are at a disapproval at this point in time based on the concern for a negative impact on the public health. Let me ask you a question because I can't tell. Sometimes, you guys may not know, what has this property historically been? Unused or? I'm not sure. This use has been occurring for several years. I do know that. Before that, I'm not sure what the use of the site was. And this was brought to your attention based upon complaints of the neighbors? Correct. Complaints were made to the Division of Code Enforcement, so I'm not sure exactly what the nature of that specific complaint was, but it was then handed over to us in order to enforce an operation of an illegal business. So the path forward for this type of business was this conditional use. It's not your typical junkyard necessarily since it is roll-off dumpsters. It's something in between perhaps a junkyard and a transfer station, but the definition of transfer station in our ordinance is very specific, and this use does not really fit into that category. So junkyard was the best fit that we had. I've got some more questions for you. Sure. This is really about the uses in the neighborhood. I'm looking at the aerial right now, and it looks like these are mostly industrial uses back away from Leastown Road. It looks like maybe some warehouses. Correct. Were those old tobacco warehouses, or were they another type of warehouse? I'm not certain. It is warehousing. Okay. Ms. Whitman says she thinks they are tobacco. And I've got a flowers baking company. Is that the old Rainbow, one of those? And then it looks like to the further down we have some landscaping businesses. Is that kind of okay? But nothing on this block would be a junkyard or? No, no. How close is this to the transfer station that was denied? I think that was on Forbes at the old. Right. Yeah, that was not in this exact same area, but certainly nearby. That's in the area. Okay. That was what, two years ago? Probably four. That was before me. Oh, my God. I think that was four too long. It feels like yesterday. Oh, listen to Tom. He agrees with that comment. Okay. Does anyone else have any comments for staff at this time? Of course, Autumn will be available later if any additional questions come up. I do have a question, Autumn. You say you don't know how long it's been operating in its current situation? It has been operating, let's see. It says 2005 on the application. Sorry. 2005 on the application. Yes. Yeah. I'm sorry. What did it say on the application? 2005. Okay. Okay, so 14, 15 years. Okay. So why is this just now coming to our attention? Because it was the result of a citizen complaint that it is operating as a junkyard. And if you look at the aerial photos throughout the years, there's certainly a significant increase in the materials that are visible on the site. Do you have aerial photos? I have a recent one. I don't have any older ones. I have a question, just for clarity's sake. The operation of the dumpsters and the trucks, I mean, all of that can continue, but what we're talking about is the storage. The materials that are, right. So in that instance, you cannot bring waste materials back to the location. But they could still continue to operate the dumpsters. They can store their dumpsters there that were empty. Okay. At least that. That kind of answers my question, too. I was going to wait until Mr. McGee got through, but I was wondering what it would take to make this compliant. I don't know whether this is the time to answer that question or not, but maybe that's something. A junkyard is a conditional use in the zone, and with the appropriate mitigation plan, perhaps we would be looking at a different recommendation. Okay. All right. So I think we could flesh out a little bit. I know a lot of times with the applications, we talk about things that aren't necessarily immediately before us because they're so intertwined with the application itself. But in this instance, the storage of the vehicles and the roll-off dumpsters isn't an issue. It's the storage of material located. Correct. I think the things that we need more information about are specifically what types of materials are being stored here, what type of waste it is, and then environmental impacts and mitigation on stormwater and making sure that those materials are handled appropriately. Okay. So if the truck leaves, it comes to my house, I fill it with construction material because we're redoing a kitchen, would the truck be then able to come back to this site and wait until it's taken to a dump site, or would the truck have to come back empty at this time if the application? At this time, if the application were disapproved, it would have to come back empty. Okay. Does that answer your questions, Mr. Clerk? I think that clarifies for me. Okay. So essentially they can use this for truck storage. They just cannot bring materials back or store materials at this site until we approve that application. And staff would not recommend approval of that application until such time as all these additional governmental entities were to sign off that things were being done with proper permitting. Okay, I understand. Any other questions? Yeah, I have one follow-up if you could. Let's use that example. If the truck comes back full but it's parked there overnight with the idea it needs another day to be dumped in an appropriate place, would that be legal? That would not be legal without the conditional use. Okay. Any type of overnight storage would not be allowed. So, Autumn, you mentioned in the report that the zoning ordinance does not list specific impacts which must be addressed. Have you all undertaken any kind of study or do you have any evidence that there are adverse impacts because of this operation of this business in its current state? As far as its current effects based on what's been going on there, are you aware of anything? I'm not aware of anything, no. Okay. Other than that a complaint was generated. Okay. Do you know when in 2005 you started operation? I do not know. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions for Autumn at this time? Well, thank you, ma'am. I'm sure we will have additional questions for you. Mr. McGee, if you want to come forward. Please state your name for the record. James B. McGee. Mr. McGee, the staff has recommended disapproval of your application. It appears that, for the most part, really between the lines of the report, they find the application to be premature in that some governmental sign-offs and materials have not been supplied to them. So at this point it's your opportunity to talk to us, and I would focus a lot on the questions that we've already asked staff on reasons that you think we should allow this application. I bought that place 14 or 15 years ago, and we've been operating in the same manner for 15 years. And this all developed this year or within the past year with code enforcement, and I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. The trucks come in and out of there nonstop. And to make something clear, when they come in after the landfill, the landfill is closed out here in Avon, and when they come in after the transfer station is closed over there on Old Frankfort Pike, they don't have anywhere to dump, and they just sit there until the next day. I'm looking at an aerial right now. This is from Google Maps, and it looks to me like there's a huge pile of rubbish on your property. So I'd say it's more than just the truck sitting there with material in it. This looks like it's a dumping site. Right. I can clean that up. I wonder if you could describe your business. What business is this? A dumpster business and a demolition business. What does that mean? We tear buildings down. Okay. And do what with them? Take the stuff to the landfill. All right. So what's the stuff doing on the property? Say that again? What is that construction waste material doing on the property? Waste where they had to have a dumpster and dumped one out up there multiple times. If you dump a dumpster of waste on your property, does it stay there forever? No. What happens to it next? It gets cleaned up and taken to the landfill or the transfer station. How long does stuff sit there before it goes to the transfer station? A month. Okay. Do you know whether there are any hazardous waste in the materials that you receive on this property? I haven't had an asbestos license for 30 years, and I can tell hazardous waste. And any time a house or a building is torn down, it has to have the asbestos removed before it's torn down. There's no hazardous waste there, in my opinion. How long have you owned this property? Fifteen years. Have you operated the business on the property for the past 15 years? Yes. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant? I do. So the overnight storage is the big issue for you in being able to continue to conduct business. If it were written in a way that the waste that comes back will not be dumped or stored on the property, but that it may sit in the truck overnight until it was dumped elsewhere, that would allow you to continue to operate? I can do that. I cannot dump anything else out up there. Mr. McGee, when you do dump stuff on the property, is it for the purpose of sorting it, or is it just a place to stay? We recycle metal out of it. The metal is worth a lot of money. Related to the trash, we take the trash to the transfer station. We have to pay to dump that out at the transfer station. And the metal, we can get money for that right across the street at the metal place, metal recyclers. Do you know what the drainage pattern is on this property? If it rains, where does the water go? It goes down into a creek at the bottom of the line all the way to the left. There's a creek in there. And they take samples out of that creek four or five times a year, and they've never said anything to me about pollution or anything like that. Who is they? The water quality. Okay. Thank you. Any additional comments, questions? Let me clarify. In order to separate the metal, you have to dump it on your property. Unless we look in the boxes and if there's metal on top and there's no metal underneath, we don't dump it out. We just pick the metal out of it. Can you separate that before you put it in the dumpster at the demolition site? Customers don't separate it. They just throw it all in the dumpster. It's to our advantage to pick it out of there and pile up the metal and then recycle that. Thank you. I have a question for Autumn, I guess. Why is this not a transfer station? Or why could it not be a transfer station rather than a junkyard? Our ordinance requires that transfer stations be operated completely in an enclosed building. Okay. So that's the biggest. Got you. Thank you. Currently right now, it looks to me that this is mostly exposed soil. I'm seeing very little pads on this property except where you park the trucks. Currently where the dump pile is, is that just sitting on dirt? Say that again? Where the dump pile is on your property, is that just sitting on dirt or is that sitting on pads? On dirt. Okay. And this might be back for Autumn. So if he wants to operate as a junkyard, what we're still saying is he has to do certain things to make it acceptable and we're not. That's correct. We would still want to see some efforts for mitigation of the environmental impacts, and there are things that are within the staff report that have been recommended by some of the other entities. The Division of Water Quality has said that they would need to file an NOI with the Kentucky Division of Water, and then there are the requirements that the Kentucky Division of Waste Management has cited them for that they would need to register with the state and a couple of different things. And so, Mr. McGee, where are you on maybe addressing some of those things? Do you see a way forward in creating a plan that could mitigate this? I can hire a firm to do all that. I hate to make a decision on this case that might put a man out of business for technicalities, and I'm kind of curious about what kind of remediation efforts need to be made to allow him to continue in business. I understand there are possible environmental impacts, but you say you don't know what they are. So you said he might need to get an NOI permit? Correct. What else? Water Quality indicated that they would need to submit for an NOI to the Division of Water with the state of Kentucky for a storm water permit. Other concerns that we have are noise, water pollution, odor, vermin, and things of that nature. So seeing some sort of plan to mitigate those or something from the applicant explaining how they're preventing these types of negative effects, that would be what we would be looking for. We haven't seen anything to indicate that those items are being addressed. How long does it take to put a plan like that together? That depends on the applicant. Okay. This is the Division of Water. Have any comment? I'm with the Division of Engineering. But you're the only person over there. Typically for a site that disturbs over an acre, a notice of intent is required from Division of Water. If this were a construction site, we would require erosion control measures in place because it is a dirt pad with little to no stabilization. So those do seem reasonable requests from Division of Water, or Water Quality, I should say. Yeah. I mean, my biggest concern, I'm just going to be honest with you, is that when these trucks get dumped, are these the four-foot-tall dumpsters? Some are four-foot and some are six-foot. So my concern is when you're dumping them, even though I know they're not supposed to put anything in there except for construction materials, I'm concerned about anything else that could possibly be snuck in there, solvents, oils, things of that nature that you don't know what the customer's buried necessarily. We have a list of things that we go over with the customer every day, and no oils, no batteries, no tires, a whole list of stuff that can't go in. It's just construction debris. Oh, I understand that, but there's also a cross light and a crosswalk down the street at the corner here that I jaywalked from Esplanada. So just because you go over these things, I understand those are my concerns with this application, and the fact that staff had recommended you do discuss these things with certain governmental agencies. Have you made any effort to reach out and discuss with any of these Division of Water Quality, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management, any of these entities, had any discussions with them? No. Okay. Any more questions for the applicant at this time? I think that just along those lines, the deadline of December 16th that the violation gave you to report or register with the Energy and Environment Cabinet, have we started that process? Say that again? It looks like you have a notice of violation, and it said that you must be registered with the Energy and Environment Cabinet prior to December 16th of this year. Right. Have you guys had opportunity to get into that? No. All right. Thank you, sir. If you want to have a seat, we'll probably have more questions for you. At this point, we'll have more people come up and give testimony. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So at this point, we'll open this up for public comment to give testimony. Mr. Wahlberg, are you kind of leading the show of persons, or are these all independent individuals? I think a lot of the things I will raise will be covered by others, but I did tell my friend from the VFW here that she could go first because of a schedule issue. Okay. That's fine. Yeah, it works for me. All right. Come on up, and please state your name for the record. I'm Nicole Horstman. And Ms. Horstman, please proceed with your testimony. I believe you were here last go-around? You guys were kind of here. Veterans Day. Yes. Yes. So I'm glad you were able to make it back today. Yes. Thank you very much. I thank you guys for your time today. I am the commander of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Post 680. We are located at 1494 Leestown Road. There is essentially one warehouse building that is slowly being torn down that separates our back property from Mr. McGee's property. The picture that you all had up, we were looking at a more recent picture on Google Maps, and the debris pile that you can pull up now on Google Maps is much larger than the image we were just looking at here in this room. We have a lot of concerns. I have over 100 signatures from our members and their families as to why they do not want this to be allowed in our backyard. The members of the VFW are in opposition because the VFW serves as a safe haven for our veterans. We've been there for more than 60 years, and the families, they use our back area. We have a wonderful pavilion for barbecues, children's events, cookouts. Over the last two to three years, there has been an increase of vermin and pestilence coming in through the back of the property. We've had to increase pest control with orchid and things like that, and we have fears that if this continues in the manner that it is, that's just going to get worse. We have dinners every Friday night. We are under strict observance with the health department, and just this process of continuing. It's not healthy. We are concerned about the odor, the health, the hazmat, to the point of the dumpsters. I live in a subdivision who is under constant construction, and I assure you, there are tons of things that go in those construction dumpsters that are not from the construction site or the contractors themselves. We see it driving through the neighborhood. Our trash night is Wednesday night, and you can drive by, and you will see people dumping couches and paint cans and household trash in those construction dumpsters. So having that dumped out to be sorted, I understand that metal is, you know, of high value. We see the trucks, you know, people pulling trailers to go to the very recycling place that Mr. McGee mentioned. It's a wonderful source of additional income. But the dangers of exposing people to all of that I don't think is worth the continued payoff, nor do my members. So we respectfully ask you all to take that into consideration in your decision to continue to disapprove this conditional access for right now. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Mr. Walburn, come on up. Please state your name for the record. I'm Jacob Walburn. I'm here today on behalf of the Windmar Corporation. If this feels a little bit like deja vu for some of you, I represented the Windmar Corporation on the Transfer Station Appeal, which is kind of across the street from this when we were asking about that earlier. They own several properties in the area. The two office buildings closest to Lee's Town Road are their main campuses, but they also own a couple of industrial buildings, one immediately adjacent to the site. We've kind of covered this. You all were talking about aerial history. I think I've got some photographs that will help illustrate it. It's not so much that I don't disagree with Mr. McGee that I'm sure he's been doing some form of dumpster storage on the site. It has gotten really, really intense here recently. I can tell you that I don't believe my clients are the individuals that complained, but it doesn't surprise them that someone complained because this use has gotten really, really intense in recent history. And you can kind of tell based on the presence or non-presence of a debris pile, I think that is the debris pile from 2013. I guess they were on a cleaner day on 2016, and now you can see it's pretty substantial in 2018. But maybe a better view, these were taken from some businesses in the area. Now, you've got to understand they weren't necessarily taking photographs of the adjacent property on some of these, but it does show the adjacent property. Back in 2013, this would be the property, the subject property behind them. You can see really nothing going on. Again, in 2014, no massive pile back there. You get to 2018 and 2020, or 2019, you look behind there, you can really see the scope of the operations that we're talking about here. So it's gotten a lot more significant here recently, and I think that's probably what led someone to complain. I think this has a lot of parallels with the transfer station application that several of you heard. It would be a little bit to the south and across the street from the site we're talking about today. This body unanimously disapproved that application based on the detrimental impact to adjacent businesses, some traffic concerns, and adverse influence on what we feel like has been an evolution towards more neighborhood or community-friendly uses in this area. What standard are you all applying? Well, this isn't like the transfer station where there were a list of specific findings that you have to make. This is back to general conditional use, but from the ordinance, one of the findings that you need to make to approve a conditional use is that it's not going to have an adverse influence on existing or future development. Well, I think my friend from the VFW just told you the adverse impact it's having on existing development. I think certainly giving a sanction of government approval to an illegal junkyard would have a negative impact on future development. Staff's gone over theirs. I won't necessarily beat that into the ground other than to say that I think some of the concerns that the board was expressing about what should have been done, who should have been contacted, that should have been done before at the very least contemporaneously with the filing of this application. You all postponed this two months. We've had two months to get additional information for these neighboring businesses and neighborhoods to look at. We haven't received anything, so I think staff's disapproval recommendation is well-founded. Touching briefly, and I think this will help answer some of the questions maybe that you all had asked before what the concerns are, water quality is probably the primary concern for everyone in this area. You're about 1,400 feet. This line measures from the corner of the property. That's the Town Branch Creek right there, so about a quarter mile to Town Branch, which is obviously very concerning. If you look at the topography in this area, I think that was a question about how did the water run. So the site, let me orient myself here. So this is the site right here. It's behind that long building right there. The cooler, I was thinking of these as hot and cold. Colder means lower. The warmer colors mean higher. So you can see anything that's sitting up here is going to run down right over towards the sewer treatment plant and towards Town Branch Creek. It's not going to stay on this property. This property is actually more elevated than a lot around it. It's going to roll towards the VFW. It's going to roll towards my client's property. Runoff's a problem. These are actual photographs of runoff coming off that site. Now, it has been rainy here in the last little bit, but as you can see, there's a significant water runoff problem. Again, that inside the fence there would be the subject property. That's coming down off the subject property. That's coming down off the subject property. So anything that's... So behind the fence here will be running towards us. Up the hill there is the subject property. That's the gate. And then you can kind of see that gate up. You'd be driving up the driveway to go into it there. So anything that's in it is going to come rolling on down. Again, that property's kind of at the high point. This is Lyle Industrial. I imagine a good bulk of it is going to go into that right there. That's the storm sewer right there just dumping into an open swale. And again, anything problematic in there. There's no detention on their site. There's no retention on their site. There's no water quality measures on their site. These are all things that might help mitigate some of those concerns. I think those need to be in place before you all approve an application. Not when we'll get to that. We are in fairly close proximity to residential. Fortunately for those folks, they're mostly uphill, so they won't be dealing with some of the water runoff, but they would be dealing with some of the other problems we'll touch on briefly. 1,350 feet quarter mile to Townley Park, about 800 feet to Meadowthorpe, about 800 feet to Melrose Oak Park. We've heard concerns about pests. I think pests are the number one concerns to my clients as well. This is a resource on rats. Rats are pretty common in junkyard scenarios. Not necessarily because that's where their food is. We know this is largely construction debris. I think you'll hear some testimony from some existing neighbors that it's not just construction debris up there, but it also provides a good place for rats to nest. When you put trash on the ground or even debris on the ground, rats will tend to nest underneath it. So very concerned about the influence of rats, particularly since the volume of material that has been dumped on the site has significantly increased. It's not just rats. Possum, raccoons, snakes, squirrels, those are your kind of laundry list. This was more just to show you the scale of some of the problems. This was a main junkyard where the rats got to be the size of cats in an unregulated illegal junkyard. So obviously neighbor concern about that. And it's not that we understand that some uses do attract rodents. Right now there's a chain link fence there. So I don't think it's really doing – we haven't heard a pest control plan. Certainly I think we can do better than a chain link fence around the property to help control that issue. So it's not that there aren't solutions to these problems. It's that you haven't been presented with solutions to these problems, and therefore I don't think you're able to approve them. Noise, not necessarily as much to say on noise other than to say that OSHA talks about scrap sorting and recycling, estimates that the average noise generated by such a facility is 80 to 90 decibels. Eighty decibels is standing over your garbage disposal while it's on. Ninety decibels is a 737 landing. To give you an idea of the scale of the noise we could be talking about if this evolves as to a more scrap recycling type site. And junkyards are notorious for some of their noise concerns. Really difficult to evaluate traffic because there was no traffic details included in this application. Those of you that were on the board or were aware of the transfer station hearing will remember that we commissioned a traffic study based on the transfer station use that was going to go across the street, indicated some areas of concern. Now I'm not here to tell you this is an apples-to-apples application. That application had semi-trucks and some other things that we just don't know the scope of the operations over here. Those details have not been provided to staff. But on a similar application that was heard and disapproved previously, there were traffic concerns to be aware of. Town Branch Trail is in this area. It runs down Manchester. Spent I think now well over $7.75 million. This slide has a little bit of age on it. And again, subject site is going to be right back up in here. You can see the trail is right in this area, approximately where all that runoff was heading. Community-friendly businesses, we know this is a site that's evolving. Stockyards has moved. Distillery districts come to life. In fact, we've even seen a new proposal for the stockyard site, which is just at the end of Lyle Industrial, probably 600 feet from this site, being proposed for apartments. So again, concerns about runoff and rats when we're shepherding this towards a residential area. So in sum, I would say that the rationale for turning down the transfer station is very similar to what we think you should apply here for this use. As this area is evolving, you asked about some of the uses that are on the ground. These are mostly kind of truck terminal buildings or manufacturing buildings. They're all taking place largely indoors. I think you'll hear from some of the people that have come to the area recently that are actually operating maybe a little bit more industrial-flavored businesses, but positive community businesses. Our former transfer station site is now a storage facility, and that makes a lot of sense for people in close proximity to residential. Image 360 just opened a new facility over there. I think you may hear from them as well. We think the rationale is largely the same, but certainly without additional information, I think it's not fair to ask these neighbors to accept this use. It could have an adverse impact on Town Branch Trail, which is certainly one of the largest community investments we've been making, and I do think it could serve to inhibit more neighborhood-friendly uses that we've seen come to the area. I certainly don't like to see anybody put out of business. I do think there is a significant evolution in what has historically gone on in the site versus what has gone on recently. In fact, I think you even heard it a little bit in the testimony that was given. At first, Mr. McGee indicated that, well, they dumped the things when they needed a dumpster, and then, well, maybe it was also because they were sorting out some of the scrap metal. It's not so much the storage of dumpsters. That's not a real glamorous use, but it's I-2 property, and when you buy and invest next to I-2 property, you have to understand what your neighbors can be. Dumping out garbage on the ground is a conditional use even in I-2. It's never been pursued. As soon as that business activity was going on, it should have been applied for. Certainly don't think you have the ability to grant this authorization today based on the materials that are in front of you. We think it's genuinely inappropriate for this site in the long term, but certainly not with the record in front of you today. I know there are some neighboring businesses that would like to speak to you. I've tried to keep my rambling as contained as I could, but I am a lawyer after all, so have mercy, but would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Two things. I'm glad you didn't recycle any of your jokes from the 16th hearing, and the second thing is does anyone have any questions for Mr. Wahlberg related to his presentation before I ask another citizen person? Mr. Wahlberg, this is a heavy industrial zone. It is. How close is it to the nearest residential zone? About 800 feet. I've got the measurements back up here. I noticed, yes. So if you'll recall on the transfer station use, there was a minimum setback from residential. That, unfortunately, is not applicable to a junkyard, but these are in reasonably close proximity. 800 feet from Meadowthorpe, which is residentially zoned, 800 feet from Melrose Oak Park, which is all residentially zoned, and then Townley, this is the R3 portion of Townley back there. So less than 1,000 feet in two directions and less than 1,500 in the other. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you, Mr. Wahlberg. Thank you. Who would like to come up next? My name is Vance Evans. I purchased the place that y'all were just talking about, 203-205 Industrial, Lyle Industrial. It was turned down, I guess, for a transfer station several years back. Since, my wife and I have invested in turning that place into a storage facility. We have a brand-new climate-controlled storage facility. We have 430 units there on our site. We also, before I purchased the property, we went in to make sure we got involved into the brownfield program with the state, so that that was a good part for us. We test our water on our side, which feeds down to another feeder, which comes from their property. So ours is tested twice a year. We're hoping to have our part of that that feeds down in there down tested to one time of year this year. We're on approval for that right now. My question was, you know, what kind of construction materials and stuff are coming down through there as well? With the rodents and everything, you know, I've got people storing all their worldly possessions in my property. That's a big thing for the clients as well. I've had several people ask about that as well. I hate to see anybody else go out of business as well, but it just looks like it could be a – from what I've seen from when we first started looking at the property to what it's grown to, as everybody else has pointed out, it's turned into a little bit bigger operation, unregulated than what we thought. Also, the pitchers speak for themselves as well. Any questions for Mr. Evans? Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Please state your name for the record. Gary Young. Mr. Young, please proceed. I'm the maintenance coordinator, environmental coordinator for the Westrock box making facility that is on the backside of that plant. The area that's in question is right outside behind our plant. We're in industrial manufacturing. We make corrugated boxes and stuff like that. We have to go through and test our water quality as well for total suspended solids, and that is done twice a year as well. Part of one of the sampling spots that we have to take from is in line with the runoff that comes off of said property. That's one of the concerns that was raised by our internal environmental department. We've also had a huge influx of rodents on the site, so much so that we had to impose extra controls in place, putting out extra traps and stuff like that. We had mice running across employees' desks in the middle of the day, so that did not go over very well. We also manufacture boxes for the food industry. Mr. Young, I apologize. Which one is your building? It is... What's the street address? 170. Okay, thank you. We have a dumpster that is located up behind our facility, and it is strict requirements that it is wood and metal only. That was one of the things that kind of raised concerns to us, the stuff that we see on the ground outside of our facility, stuff that we've seen on the ground behind our facility that has stayed there for months on end. A couple of the images that Mr. Jacob put up was rain runoff. I've got videos of it coming down like a river down the hill. There is runoff that goes down to the creek at the end of the property. That was an area of concern that was brought up during one of my state and city environmental inspections. That's all I can think of at the moment. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Young? Okay, thank you. I'd like to direct this to staff real quickly. I'm looking at the PVA's aerial. Across the street at 195 Lyle Industrial Avenue, which is next to Mr. Vance's storage facility, what is that? I think it's owned by Blue Heaven Realty. The reason I'm asking is it looks like it has a lot of junk dumped in the back of its facility. I'm not sure. The aerial I have in front of me does not have that extent. I'm not sure what's over there. It's 195. The reason I'm asking is because, to me, just looking at this aerial, it looks like they have a lot of materials dumped. It's dumped on a pad. There are retention walls. I mean, not retention. There are detention with what looks like silt. Mr. Wahlberg, could you explain what this piece is? These aren't my folks, but just my internet research as we sat here. 185, which is kind of across the street, is ABC Building Supply. I guess that would be before they go into houses that ultimately get torn down, new products. Heading down, there is quality truck and trailer repair, which I think is what you're seeing on the overheads that might be on the ground back there. I would assume those are auto parts, but that's not a facility that my clients own, so I can't speak to it other than what I'm looking at on the overheads here. Thank you. Let me try to think here. Do we have anyone else? I want to make sure I didn't skip somebody. Mr. Young says that's probably Midwest Metals that you're looking at, which is a metal recycler. Okay, a metal recycling plant? Yes. I mean, that's what it looks like to me. The one across the street. Yes, and it looks like it's what I would think such a plant would look like, which is it's not just a pile of dirt with stuff on it. Okay. At this point, I guess I'll have the – does the staff have any additional comments? In that case, Mr. McGee, I'll invite you to come up one last time and give us your quick summary of why we should approve this. I will then close this to public comment, and at this point, the board and staff, we can still ask questions of people, but at that point, we're not going to take any more testimony. Thank you. Right across the street that you were talking about, they're a metal recycler, and that's where we take our metal. And if anything's a junkyard, that is. Right across the street. Anything else? I'm sorry? Any other comments? No, but I can clean that pile of debris up in a couple months. I figure about 30 dumpsters would clean that up. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay, at this point, I'm going to close public comment. I'm going to open it up for any comments from the board. Remind the members, we can still call people up to answer questions if we so choose, but I don't plan on people voluntarily coming up unless we want to speak with them. I'd just like to state, and we all have the sentiment of encouraging business and not wanting to do anything to hinder business, but I would like to point out that a lot of the business neighbors have done all the steps required to satisfy the environmental requirements and they're having their water quality tested. So they're actually going the steps, doing the additional steps that have been required to be into business. So I feel like there's a solution to this issue that, you know, the company has been directed as far as what those options are. They've been sent notices, and other companies are able to do that. So whereas I'd love to see you continue to operate in business, you just, you know, we have to follow the requirements and all businesses are having to do that in that area. So I don't know if that means anything. Just to clarify, the business could continue in operations. It just could no longer store or dump materials on the site. Is that correct, staff? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so we wouldn't actually be putting them out of business. We would just be limiting part of their business that they are currently doing. It appears to be in violation of the ordinance and possibly other state and local regulations. Let me ask this question as well. If we disapprove this, what is the requirement from Mr. McGee to clean up what's there now? The zoning compliance office would just have to work with Mr. McGee to give him a reasonable amount of time to clean things up and to cease bringing the dumpsters full of stuff to the site. But it would be required, would it not? Oh, yes, it would be required. Well, Mr. McGee said it would take two months, so I would think that would be the outside of what I would expect from a zoning compliance officer. Well, that's part of it. But if he's going to have to totally change his business model to not have anything come to the site at all in the dumpsters, then that's going to be an extra step for him to take that we'll have to work with. At this point, if he were to come back with the materials that have been requested, would staff feel that that was a new enough set of facts that it would be a new application, he would not have to wait the full year term to request a conditional use permit for this site? We would be comfortable with that coming back before a year if it was a substantially different application. Any more questions or comments at this time? All right, well, hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I move for disapproval of PLN BOA 19-71, James B. McGee's request for conditional use to operate a junkyard in a heavy industrial zone on property located on 130 Lyle Industrial Avenue based on the staff's recommendations. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Is there a second? Second. Anyone want to discuss this motion before we call a vote? In that case, I'll call the vote. The motion is approved. Your application was denied, which means at this point you'll need to work with the zoning compliance officer for the... No, I voted. Who's missing? Tom, are you voting? He's working on it. You need to work with the zoning compliance officer on winding down this portion of your business. If you want to refile an application, you would need to talk with Jim and Autumn about filing a new application. And, of course, there's always you have a right to an appeal underneath our zoning ordinance to the circuit court if you thought we found our decision was made in error. Thank you, sir. Good luck in the future. This takes us to our last case. I'm going to recuse myself from this case. So if you would indulge me for a second, I'd like to clean up anything. Since this is the last case, I will do my exit, which has been now two months in a row. So I appreciate staff with coincidentally finding cases that work with my schedule like that. Mr. Needham is returning. And so what I have to do is at this point, are there any board items that need to be discussed? Or does the staff have anything to bring to our attention? I'd like to remind the council in the room and also the people sitting at home who love watching these, we have set our schedule for next year. So our schedule is, you can find that online with the Board of Adjustments website underneath the planning office. We are keeping the same day and time, which is the second Monday of each month at 1.30. I think we only bump into one or two federal holidays but no holidays, so we shouldn't be rescheduling any of our meetings next year. They should be all then. The next meeting will be January 13th, 2020 at 1.30 p.m. I'd like to wish everyone a happy holiday season, a Merry Christmas and New Year. And I look forward to seeing you guys next year. Thank you very much. And I'll pass the gavel on to Mr. Glover. Thank you, sir. The next and last item on the docket is PLN VOA 19-85, Matt Burton. Is the applicant present? Mr. Murphy, come forward. I have some handouts, which I'm going to bring up to you all right now, if that's okay. We'll see you next year. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here representing Matt Burton, who is the applicant on this case. I have some handouts I'm giving out to you and also have some photos I'll be getting to in a little bit here. Just a matter of introduction, Dave Burton and Matt Burton own Dudley Square, which is up at the corner of Mill Street and Maxwell Street, as you all know. They are father and son. Matt is here with me. Matt is the development manager for Dudley Square. As you all know, this is the old Dudley School, which was repurposed several years ago into a neighborhood business or service center on that. And Matt is the manager of Dudley Square. And due to a shortage of parking in this area, which has hindered the revitalization of Dudley Square, Matt and his dad bought this a couple years ago. And at the time they purchased the property, the occupancy in Dudley Square is only about 40%. Since they bought it, they've got the occupancy up to about 65%. And they have leases pending for two more tenants, potential five-year leases for two more tenants. But those people won't sign the lease until they get the parking situation stabilized. They're making a major effort to keep Dudley Square viable, and this is part of that. So they purchased the property, which is before you today, at 421 to 425 South Mill Street, which is a half-block down Mill Street, with the hopes of continuing the nonconforming use on that property for parking on an interim basis so that they can stabilize the parking situation. They're going to continue to try to come up with a permanent parking solution for Dudley Square so that it can retain its viability. But I just say that to let you know this is a subject of utmost importance for the viability of Dudley Square. Now, looking at, of course, this is a picture of Dudley Square that we have up before you. The properties, which you see probably from the map in your book or from page one of my paper handout, we're proposing a small parking lot, construction of a small parking lot on this property, which is at 421 and 425 South Mill Street, one half-block down. These properties, as you can see from our handout of our site plan, on the north, which is actually, north is this way toward town, downtown is down this way toward the bottom. We have a commercial building, which is, I'll show you a picture of that in a minute, automobile service area, which, of course, has oil and chemicals and all the things that automobile service areas do. To the south, we have a building for a company called Phoenix Company, LLC. Their owner has a letter of support in, which is the last letter in our handout, which is, as I understand, used for storage and working on an automobile collection. Both the properties on either side are used for commercial purposes. Now, in the 1980s, though, this block, which was a commercial block, along with some other areas in South Hill, was rezoned from, I think, either a B4 or I1 zone down to the R2 zone, from a pretty heavy commercial zone down to the duplex residential zone back in the 1980s. Now, at that time, there were buildings on this property, and the commercial use continued, as you have a right to do when your property is down zoned. You can keep using the property for the use it was in or a lesser use as a continuation, as a legal, nonconforming use. So we did some research on these properties, and the first uses I'll tell you about are on 421, which is the northern part, which is toward the bottom of this property. 421 was occupied by Southern Ornamental Iron, and then it was occupied by an auction house. Then it was occupied as storage for Frederick's Furniture Company, and then it was occupied by Lexington Ornamental Iron, which was different, I guess, from Southern Ornamental Iron, which was a previous use. Then it was occupied by a warehouse for an environmental service company. Now, the southern part on the top, the building on the southern part of the property, was used as a printing company, a tool and dye company. Then it was used as DL Graphics, which was a printing company, and then it changed to Don Mills Printing. So these were both commercially used up until 2003. The buildings were demolished by the then owner of the property in 2003, but a commercial use persisted, and that is using the property for parking. It was used for parking on an oral basis. There's one written lease we have in the handout, which is page 2 of the handout, a written lease that was entered into in 2004 for off-site parking for a local architect's office. But by and large, it was done on an oral basis, and also for the adjoining properties, which worked on cars. But that has continued down to today. And I know there's a letter in your file from Ms. Wiseman, who lives in the area, who makes the contention that since these properties have been used for commercial businesses for over a year, that the nonconforming use is lost. And I just got that an hour and a half ago, but in response to that, the rule, even though Lexington has an ordinance that says that if you don't use something for a year, you lose it, that rule was declared invalid by Kentucky's highest court some years ago. It's the case of Smith v. Howard. And in that case, the then Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in Kentucky at that time, said that the Versailles Ordinance, which was just like Lexington's, that said if you don't use something for a year, you lose it, is invalid because the key is the intent of the property owner. And a use can be gone for more than a year, well more than a year, if it wasn't the intent of the owner to abandon the property. And the intent to abandon can be inferred by either what the property owner was trying to do with the property or what has actually gone on on the property. So as the staff said, we feel we have retained the nonconforming use, but I want to emphasize we feel we've retained it for parking. I'm not up here asserting to you that we could come in and ask you or ask the city to give us a permit to build a new commercial building on this property, because I don't think I'd probably do that because the commercial buildings have been down since 2003. What has persisted and continued is parking off-site for area businesses. The architecture firm, as I talked about, the automobile service on both sides of the building, and others in the area who have continued to use this lot for parking purposes. I also want to say that we're not saying that we want to use this as parking from now forever on a long-term basis. We recognize that the only buildings that are ever going to be built on this property are going to be for residential purposes, and that is the desired use of this property when a use comes up. At the same time, those buildings have been down since 2003, and there have been no users of this property for residential purposes. And I think you'll see from my pictures in a moment about why that is, and that's because we're sandwiched in a 60-foot gap between two large commercial buildings that come up to our lot line, right up to our lot line on both sides. I don't think this property is going to be used for residential purposes until one of our buildings on either side is redone or demolished and used for residential purposes. At that time, I think this property will go for residential purposes, and that's the only type of building that could ever be built on this property. But until that time, the property has continued to be used, as I said, for parking purposes. If we could go to the pictures, I'll show you a little bit more about this. This, of course, is Dudley Square up at the corner of Maxwell and Mill Street. Now, the next one is going down a half block from Dudley Square to where we are, and this is the subject property. We are the 60-foot gap between Lexington Auto Works, which is right here, and the Phoenix Company, which is right here. You can see both buildings come up to the sidewalk, have a long blank wall against us. You can see the one to the south is what I call a blank wall, just no windows or anything along that side. And going to the next one, this is looking back at the side of the property, the side you couldn't see. I guess they do have one window there, but that's the Lexington Auto Works on our north. This is the view on Plunkett Street, which is the one right behind us. Matt has had a number of meetings with the Historic Southfield Neighborhood Association. Unfortunately, we were unable to come to a total agreement with them, but we've agreed on a lot of things with the Southfield Neighborhood Association. And one of that is that the vehicular access will come off our property here, right in the lower part of this, as you can see where we are. I'm standing on Matt's property looking out to Plunkett Street here. This is what's across the street from us on Plunkett Street. But our traffic will be coming in and off of Plunkett Street rather than South Mill Street. We'll have no vehicular traffic on South Mill, so we don't have the turning actions on South Mill, delaying traffic on South Mill Street. I'm going on to the next one. We'll get to that one in a minute. Yeah, that's just a detail of the building to the north of us, where I took the last one looking onto Plunkett Street. I just turned around and looked at the building to the north of us. I sort of like that sign. It's the old Motorola radio company. They used to install radios in cars or in your house. And this is another detail. They do work on cars there. This was taken yesterday. This is one of the cars they're working on yesterday, or not working on it yesterday, but stored to work on. This is Sunday. This is a Sunday afternoon. Even at that point, there were four or five cars on this property. Full disclosure, one of them is mine. I just parked there at a park, but the rest of them are, I don't know where they're from, on here. You're just looking towards Plunkett Street? Towards Plunkett Street, yes. Now, we have looked at the aerial photography as well. Matt got some pictometry photos off of the PVA website, taking photographs of various years, aerial photographs of various years, showing what it is. This doesn't show the full extent because Matt has owned this property for only six or seven months. Since May this year, they purchased it. He counted up to 16 cars parked on this property soon after he purchased the property on a daily basis. But this one, this photograph is a photograph from the PVA. I'm sorry you can't see it real well here. The date's up here. It's February of 2013. And as you can see, at that time, there was a box truck, four or five cars there, and this line is the separation between our two lots. This is 421. This is 425. You can see a flatbed truck with either a pickup or a cab loading or unloading cars on that. The next one is a year later, 2014. Again, you can see cars parked here. There's a flatbed truck there again. I don't know if it's the same one or not, but a number of cars parked on the property. This is not in chronological order. This is 2011. This is a school bus, a bigger box truck, several cars. There's one there on the other one, one down here parked on the property. And last one is 2015. Again, there's a flatbed truck. The cars are partly parked on this property, part on the other, a bunch of parked cars there. And these are just photographs of what the buildings were on the site prior to their demolition, the commercial buildings on the site. So that's all that we have here on that. But now they don't show as many cars as Matt has seen there himself as well, but I think you can see that the parking use on this property has continued after the buildings were demolished on this property. So I think it's clear that the nonconforming use for parking has not been abandoned by the owners or users of this property. And that's what we're asking for. We're asking for use as parking. I want to make it clear, we're not asking for any permission to build any type of commercial structures on the property. As I mentioned to you before, the legal standard is that there is no intent shown to abandon the use we are requesting to continue as a nonconforming use. I know, as I said, Matt has had some discussions with the South Hill Neighborhood Association. I think there's a lot of sympathy toward wanting to provide parking to ensure the viability of Dudley Square. At the same time, I know the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association wants to protect the neighborhood at the same time as well. And in looking at the property, if you could go back to our plan, which is in the handout, you can see we have provided a number of items, which are good ideas, not just because they were requested by the South Hill Neighborhood Association. As I mentioned to you, number one, this does not result in a zone change. I think the biggest concern of people in the neighborhood is that there would not be a zone change on this property, which would turn it back into a commercial use. And after we looked into this, we felt that, yes, there was a valid nonconforming use to parking only, but a valid nonconforming use for parking on this property, which is the legal basis for allowing us to use this as parking for Dudley Square. We will have access only in the rear here back on Plunkett Street. We will not have access on the South Mill Street. We will have a fence along South Mill Street with a pedestrian gate only, and Matt had agreed to do some verification process, either a fob or something to operate the gate. The one thing we could not agree to was making this six feet tall. That's because there is a limitation on the height of signs in the front yard of four feet tall, and it's a police matter, too. You want people to be able to look over the top of the fence and see what is going on behind that fence as a safety matter. But we will have a fence there with a fob. This will be limited to employees of Dudley Square. It will not be for customers of Dudley Square. So it will cut down on the traffic that comes in. In other words, if I'm working at Dudley Square, I come in when my shift begins, I leave when my shift ends, and that's it. There's no in and out traffic for customers or other people who are delivering or whatever to Dudley Square. It's employee parking only. The staff has made a condition that it be paved, and Matt has agreed to that. It's a considerable expense. It's up to a six-figure expense to do the paving and the landscaping, which I have not mentioned to you that he will be doing as well, to pave this to use it as an interim parking solution to Dudley Square. That's one reason we need this to be able to be in effect for a few years, so that otherwise it's just financially unfeasible to do this with the staff conditions, which we agree with. As I said, I do have a letter of support in the packet, the last page, from Mr. Scanlon, who owns the property to the south, the Phoenix Company, on that. As I said, the law makes it clear that gaps can occur in usage, but in this one I don't even think there's been a gap in usage. The property has been continually used for parking since the buildings were removed in 2004. And as I said, we're not asking to build a building, and if you vote in favor of this, this will not give us permission to build any building on this property. All it would be giving us permission to do is to build this lot and use it for parking purposes. As I said, I think there's been no abandonment of the use for parking, and we do agree that the long-term use of this property should be for residential purposes, and that is the only type of building that legally could be built on this property. And I think that's going to happen, but I don't think it's going to happen until one of these buildings is either repurposed or demolished for residential use on it. Ms. Wiseman mentioned in her letter that the property had been marketed as a residential use last time, and that's true. It had been marketed as a residential use. Well, look who is the person who bought it, somebody who doesn't use it for residential use. They haven't gotten any buyers of this property as a residential use before or after those buildings were torn down in 2004, and I don't think they're going to get any until one of those uses is on the side uses. And I think this is an appropriate interim use for this property until that time comes when residential uses can be built on the property. So we thank you for hearing this. As I said, this is a matter of extreme importance to Dudley Square, and I know there's a statement from the neighborhood that you'll want to hear too, but we obviously hope that you'll vote in favor of allowing us to use this as interim parking. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I've got a question to start us off. You said in your opening remarks that this is an interim use, and I think I understood you to say that the intent would be to use it for residential uses when one of the properties that abut this space are torn down. So when you say interim use, is the plan to use this for employee parking, permitted parking, until one of those buildings is torn down so that it can be used as a residential area? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Any questions for Mr. Murphy from the board? I have a couple, some comments. You have fences on both ends. Tell me a little more about the gate on Plunkett, Mr. Murphy. You said gate, but I wasn't sure exactly how. I'm sorry. There's not going to be a gate on Plunkett. That's where you're going to have vehicular access. There will be a curb and driveway entrance as meets the city's codes to do that. The fence will be along Mill Street. They need a fence on one side so you can't drive all the way through from one side to the other. So there's no fence of any kind there on Plunkett? Not right now that we're planning, no. All right. I would like to say that knowing the Dudley Square, and I have several reasons to use that facility, and I will say that you really do need parking there. I would say that that is a good use. So if you're going to pave this and then down the road a year, two, three, four, whatever, it becomes necessary to sell it again as residential if somebody is interested in actually putting up a building for residential. Is that going to affect the use of the property because it's paved and you start all over again with residential? Is that correct? Yeah, you'd have to either take out the paving, or I was talking to Matt about this. I know there's at least one expert on construction in here. We're talking about possibly being able to cut through the paving where the footings will be for the new building so you don't have to cut it all out, but that would have to be a construction decision, and leaving the paving where you're going to have the driveway anyway from the back, that sort of thing, but you'd have to redo it to use it for residential. One quick other question, and I don't have it in front of me, but the letter from the Neighborhood Association's Historic District lists several things that they would ask for. What of those are you all planning to add there? I have a copy of that letter. I got it again earlier this morning, and they list six conditions there, and I think we're basically in agreement with five. Now, the first one was employee parking only with monitored parking sticker permits, towing enforced, no meters are paid apart, and we agree with that. Number two, no curb cut on Mill Street. Only Plunket Alley will provide vehicle access. Pedestrian-only gate access on Mill Street, which shall be equipped with a key fob or similar secured entry. We agree with that. Number three, well-manicured landscaping with painted fence on Mill Street. We agree with that. The only issue was six feet tall. Four feet. As I mentioned, we'd go to four feet because that's what the ordinance limits you to. Number four, no permanent structure to be built on lot until residential use is constructed. We agree with that. Number five, no zone change on lot. We agree with that. We got into the issue with the term limit on this one. The Neighborhood Association asked us for a condition that it be three years with no possibility of using the lot after three years. We understand why that's being asked for. But on the other hand, there's two concerns we have about that. One is, obviously, he's spending in the six figures to build a parking lot and does have to amortize that and does have to spread that across the rents at Dudley Square. And two is that even if we agreed to three years, we don't want to be cut off from coming back to you and saying, hey, we need some more time. We don't want to agree to advance that we'd never come back to you if circumstances warranted on that. And it's going to be none of us can look in the crystal ball and see what's happening three years from now. I hope that they've acquired other parking and don't need this anymore. But that's a hope. That's not a definite thing in there. So we got hung up on the term limit, if you will, on that. And as I said, fully understanding that the permanent use of this property is going to be residential. We totally understand that. It's just that putting a date that you're going to do at this date, regardless of what happens, that's the problem. That's very good. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy from the Board? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Have a seat. We'll hear from any opposition. Yes, ma'am, come up and state your name. I'm Jean Scott. I'm a resident of South Hill. I live on South Hill Street, and I'm here representing the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association. You already have in front of you and Mr. Murphy referred to our neighborhood letter from our board submitted on December 6th. And we cited several conditions that Mr. Murphy talked about by which we would agree to using the lot in question as parking. Key to us was the temporary use of that lot as parking, recognizing that this is a residential neighborhood. The goals of the city are for more residential infill, and a permanent parking lot would work against that and against future residential development. And the temporary versus long-term use as parking is important to us in that neighborhood. We also have a letter that Mr. Murphy referred to from Rena Wiseman, and it goes back to the staff report that provided the findings for this. And the staff report said that there had been no parking lot use since 2009. And the parking lot uses that Mr. Murphy has shown have been not as a parking lot, but just the grass edge along the plunket side as ad hoc use by neighboring uses. That's not a parking lot. It's ad hoc use on the grass as a temporary just by adjacent property owners and not a formal parking lot. It's clear that since 2009, if you want to go with that aerial photo, there has been no business use, continuing intent of commercial business use since 2009, and really since the demolition of the property in 2003. Whether it's one year or longer, nine years or more, it's clearly intent to abandon a use. And so we totally disagree that the commercial use has not been abandoned. In fact, you have in front of you a letter from an adjacent property owner just south of the site saying that the lot has never been used for parking and urging disapproval of the use as parking. In fact, cited some traffic hazards on Mill Street if that parking lot were to be approved there. But the key thing is that this lot has not been, there's no intent that has been established by staff or by the applicant to use this as a continuing commercial use. I've lived in the neighborhood five years, and except for right along the grass edge of the plunket side, I've never seen a car parked in the lot used as a parking lot. It has been a grass strip with only the parking side. We also have the letter from a realtor saying that for the prior owner, the property was marketed as residential. It was marketed as residential when the applicant brought the property, and the applicant knew full well when they bought the property, the history of the property, that it was nonconforming use, that there had been no evidence, and that when he bought the property, the Marshall Street property, he knew that he wanted to grow the business there, and he knew the limitations of parking, and so why the neighborhood should have a paved parking lot is no reason why this should be approved. So just going back to the situation is, we really supported the property owner's buy-in of Dudley Square. That's why we met with the property owner at his request to approve and say we would be okay with parking as a temporary use. We wanted the business to succeed. We thought three years, or whether it's four or whatever it is, would provide ample time to work out longer-term property, and now at this point it's that the property owner knew that there was limits on that site. So for a whole variety of reasons, including that it's been at least nine years since any established use for business or commercial or parking, that this application as proposed should not be approved, and that the residential character of the historic South Hill neighborhood is important and needs to be preserved, and that surface parking over the long term is not consistent with a safe, walkable neighborhood. I know from walking that neighborhood from all ends at night and both sides of the parking lot. So in summary, we urge you to not approve this on a permanent basis. It's not consistent with goals for the residential neighborhood or for the city, and it represents a threat to the integrity of the historic South Hill neighborhood. Again, we support the viability of Dudley Square, and we support temporary parking there until something longer-term can be worked out by the owner. It's not that we don't support it. It's just that long-term parking there is not consistent with residential character and for a safe, pedestrian neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Scott, I had one question before you leave. I just have one question for you. Come back up to the podium. There's a question for you. Yes. What was the original street? I mean, obviously there are businesses on there now. How many businesses are currently on South Mill in that area? Well, I mean, on the block in question, there's the two that Mr. Murphy showed. And is that the only two? On that block. On that block, right. Well, I mean, I don't know. There may be an architect's office on that block or the next block. And the zoning is B2A? R2. R2 on the whole block? Yes. And is that because there were homes originally there? I didn't live there then. I just know that. I'm just wondering the history. Yeah. And I think Mr. Murphy just said when that was rezoned, wasn't it 80-something he said? Yeah. Rezoned is R2. I mean, it's a residential neighborhood. It's a historic district overlay. It's like an oldest neighborhood in Lexington. But, I mean, I can't attest to the history of the lot. Okay. Okay. That's all right. Mr. Murphy had that. Yeah. But, I mean, there's clearly no established intent to use that property as commercial since the original building was torn down. Okay. Thank you. And looking at the record. Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other speakers in opposition? Yes, sir. No? Yes? You want to speak in favor of the application? Sure. Come forward and tell us your name. My name is Rhett Constantine, and I'm the owner of Old School Coffee, a business located inside Dulles Square. You know, I've overheard everything here today, and parking is my main concern. My business is four months old, and I'm already seeing tension between other tenants in this parking lot that we have currently. And as I continue to grow this business and as the building continues to grow, I find it extremely important that the employees of the business have a reliable place to park that's not competing with the customers. I don't want my employees jeopardizing a spot that my customers may use to come and patronize my business. I just wanted to speak, you know, from as a business owner's perspective, that it is extremely important that this lot is secured, that, you know, that I can count on that for my employees. And, again, for the growth of this business and Dulles Square in whole. If Dulles Square can't support healthy local businesses, you know, it's going to be a real shame because it is a beautiful building in a beautiful neighborhood. And tell us the name of your business. Old School Coffee. Old School Coffee. And I'd like to say I love your business. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Constantine? Say your name again. Rhett Constantine. Any further questions for him? Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time. Mr. Murphy, did you have any rebuttal or do you want to say anything further? Sure. Hi. I'm Matt Burton, the owner of Dulles Square and the mill lots in question. And I just wanted to introduce myself and give a little brief history from our side of things. We purchased Dulles Square in July of 2018. And at that time, the building was over 60% vacant. And so since then, our intent has been to bring in new businesses that will be complementary and service the area. And I think we've done that so far. But, unfortunately, when we purchased the building, we lost 40% of the parking that had historically been associated with Dulles Square. And so at the same time of losing a big chunk of our parking, we're also taking our vacancy from 65% down to virtually about 20%, with the exception of the restaurant space, which makes up a big component of it. So even this lot that we're talking about on Mill Street for designated employee parking, it's just a measure to continue to fill the building and provide a reasonable place for the staff to park. And that's what this really boils down to, is just having a place where a lot of these employees that work, you know, 9 to 5, know I can show up, I can park here, and it's not going to cause problems with other tenants in the building and, you know, that it'll provide some sustainability long term. I've spoke with both property owners adjacent to the 421 and 425 mill lot, as well as the four property owners directly across the street, who will be the most impacted by this use. And they've all indicated that as long as we follow through with a painted fence and a gate, a nice landscaping, that they support it and they think it's a meaningful purpose. So that's kind of the feedback that I've received. I have met with the Neighborhood Association multiple times and have a good relationship with them, and I can see their concerns. But leading back to our point, this is a use that's designated and solely tied to employee parking, and one that we feel is really important for the livelihood of Dudley Square. How did you lose 40% of your parking when you purchased the building? Because when we purchased Dudley Square, we were not able to acquire one of the parking lots that had been historically tied to it. We exercised all means we could, and we were not able to acquire it. The previous owner has a different development plan in mind for it. So we kind of went in opposite directions. We went from massive vacancy with a lot of parking to near full occupancy with less parking than we've ever had. There's a parking lot right across from Maxwell. Correct, sir. Who owns that, Mr. Burden? The previous owner of Dudley Square, it's Boca Tide, the Freisberg family. They don't reside here in Lexington. But we thought we had it secured at one point, and unfortunately we did not, and we've continued to exercise kind of all remedies to acquire it and to associate it with the building. And that's still our long-term effort, but we have not been able to do so. That was my question. But there is a precedent for a parking lot on that street anyhow. Correct. When we purchased the 421 and 425 mill lot, it had been kind of commandeered by neighboring businesses and residents of just pulling up and parking on the plunket side. I had not witnessed cars parked, you know, on the first half of the mill side, but I've witnessed, you know, in the double-digit, vehicles parked on the plunket side and towards the middle of the property. So our goal would be to make it aesthetically an improvement from what's there right now. We'd like to have a nice, you know, painted Keeneland green fence with a gate and arbor vortices spanning it, and we think that, you know, aesthetically it would be appealing and be a meaningful use for what's been a vacant lot for decades and just been used as parking by neighboring businesses. It looks to me from the application that you plan on having 29 parking spots. Is that right? That is correct. It's going to have to be revised per staff. Traffic control has come back with some tweaks on that, so that will be reduced. But knowing that we can take, you know, in the 20s parking spots that are being used as employee parking on our current lots and relocate them here to this lot, it would really free up the traffic flow and ability for patrons to access the building. You've read the staff report, I assume. Correct. And the fact that there are conditions associated with this application, is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Burton? Mr. Murphy, anything else from you? Just in summary, I just want to reiterate that we're not asking for a declaration that commercial uses can be constructed on this property. We're only saying that the parking use has continued, and I think we've showed that on the photographs. It obviously hasn't been a paved parking lot, but parking has continued on this since those buildings were taken down. It is our intention to use that as interim parking, as mentioned before. I guess there was some criticism that it be paved parking. I mean, we didn't ask to pave it, but we fully understand that that is the requirement of the city and intend to comply with the city requirements on paved parking. I think this will be much more attractive than the current situation. And, again, we know that the only building that's ever going to be built on this property is going to be residential. We just don't know when it's going to be. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Anything further from the Board? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN BOA 19-85, Matt Burton request for an administrative appeal to reestablish a legal nonconforming use parking lot property within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two-family residential zone within historic overlay zone at 421 and 425 South Mill Street based on the staff recommendation and the five conditions as listed. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. All those in favor, indicate your vote electronically. Motion carries. Good luck with your project. Is there any further business before we adjourn the December meeting of the Board of Adjustment? Nothing further from legal, from staff, from Board members? Hearing none, the Board of Adjustment is adjourned until 2020. See you on January 13th.