# Board of Adjustment - July 13, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 13, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5169 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5169?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-07-13 - **Last revised**: July 13, 2020 - **Length**: 15,984 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on July 13, 2020, at 1:30 PM via video teleconference, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed three variance appeals during the session, taking a total of three votes on the matters presented. The meeting focused exclusively on variance requests from property owners seeking relief from local zoning requirements. Of the three variance appeals considered, the board approved one request from Thomas D. and Christina Aurora Parrish while denying two others submitted by Ogden Hilliard and Joshua Cameron Marcum. No public comments were received during the meeting, and no separate presentations were given beyond the standard case presentations for each variance appeal. The meeting was conducted entirely through video teleconference, reflecting the remote meeting protocols in place during 2020. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on July 13, 2020: • Branden Gross • Raquel Carter • Thomas Glover • Harry Clarke • Chad Walker • Chad Needham • Joan Whitman Joan Whitman arrived late to the meeting. No members were recorded as absent from this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered three variance applications during the meeting, with mixed results. **PLN-BOA-20-00029** - Thomas Glover motioned to approve a variance for Thomas D. and Christina Aurora Parrish to increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50, seconded by Harry Clarke [timestamp: 01:20:00]. The motion passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, Chad Walker, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman. The approval includes conditions requiring construction to be in accordance with submitted application materials and a revised site plan reflecting the 0.50 FAR variance, with all necessary permits and approvals obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction and occupancy. **PLN-BOA-20-00028** - Thomas Glover motioned to approve a variance for Ogden Hilliard to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 02:30:00]. The motion failed on a 5-2 roll call vote. Members voting in favor were Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, and Joan Whitman. Chad Needham and Chad Walker voted against the variance. **PLN-BOA-20-00026** - Harry Clarke motioned regarding a variance for Joshua Cameron Marcum to increase the allowable height of a fence from 4 feet to 6 feet, seconded by Chad Needham [timestamp: 03:10:00]. Despite receiving unanimous support from all seven board members (Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, Chad Walker, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman), the motion failed. No conditions were attached to this application. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the proceedings. Harry Clarke was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee. The appointment was approved as part of the meeting's business. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this appointment action.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among board members. **Variance for Ogden Hilliard** The primary point of contention involved a variance request from Ogden Hilliard to reduce the side street side yard setback requirements. This proposal generated significant debate among board members, ultimately resulting in a 5-2 vote to deny the request. The disagreement centered on two key considerations: maintaining neighborhood character and ensuring consistency with existing setback requirements. Board members who opposed the variance expressed concerns about how the reduced setback might impact the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. They argued that maintaining consistent setback standards was important for preserving the area's aesthetic and structural integrity. The split nature of the vote—with five members voting against and two in favor—demonstrates that the decision was not unanimous and reflected genuine differences of opinion among the board regarding the appropriateness of granting this particular variance. The denial of Ogden Hilliard's variance request means that any development or construction on the property must comply with the standard side street side yard setback requirements as established in the local zoning ordinances. This outcome preserves the existing setback standards for the area while reflecting the board's majority position on maintaining neighborhood consistency over individual property development flexibility. ## Variance Appeal for Thomas D. and Christina Aurora Parrish [timestamp: 01:20:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a variance request from Thomas D. and Christina Aurora Parrish to increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from the current limit of 0.35 to 0.52 for their single-family residence. The variance would permit the construction of an addition to their existing home. Key speakers during the discussion included Thomas Glover and Harry Clarke, who presented details regarding the proposed variance and the property in question. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of a modified variance that would allow an FAR of 0.50 rather than the full 0.52 requested by the applicants. This staff recommendation represented a compromise between the current zoning limitation and the homeowners' original request. The board ultimately approved the variance appeal, allowing the Parrish family to proceed with their planned residential addition under the modified terms. ## Variance Appeal for Ogden Hilliard [timestamp: 02:30:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.2, a variance appeal for Ogden Hilliard requesting to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. The variance would allow construction of a new attached garage and covered patio on the property. Staff had recommended disapproval of the variance request prior to the meeting. Thomas Glover and Joan Whitman served as key speakers during the discussion of this item. The variance request sought a significant reduction in the setback requirement, asking to reduce the mandatory 30-foot side street setback by two-thirds to just 10 feet. This substantial deviation from the standard zoning requirements would have allowed the proposed garage and patio construction to proceed much closer to the side street property line than normally permitted. Following discussion of the merits of the variance request and consideration of the staff recommendation against approval, the board ultimately denied the variance appeal. The denial means the property owner cannot proceed with the proposed attached garage and covered patio construction as originally planned, and would need to either redesign the project to comply with the 30-foot setback requirement or pursue alternative options for the property improvements. The board's decision to deny the variance aligns with the staff's initial recommendation for disapproval, suggesting concerns about the appropriateness of such a substantial reduction in the required setback distance for this particular property and proposed construction project. ## Variance Appeal for Joshua Cameron Marcum [timestamp: 03:10:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.3, a variance appeal submitted by Joshua Cameron Marcum requesting permission to increase the allowable height of a fence from 4 feet to 6 feet within 3 feet of the public right-of-way. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended disapproval of the variance request. The current zoning regulations limit fence height to 4 feet when located within 3 feet of public right-of-way areas, and staff determined that the proposed 6-foot fence height did not meet the criteria for granting a variance. Key speakers during the discussion included Harry Clarke and Chad Needham, who addressed various aspects of the variance request and the applicable regulations. The board ultimately denied the variance appeal, upholding the staff recommendation for disapproval. This decision means that Marcum's fence must comply with the existing 4-foot height limitation when constructed within 3 feet of the public right-of-way, in accordance with current zoning requirements. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-20-00029** — passed (7-0): Variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.35 to 0.50 for Thomas D. and Christina Aurora Parrish - **PLN-BOA-20-00028** — failed (5-2): Variance to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30’ to 10’ for Ogden Hilliard - **PLN-BOA-20-00026** — failed (7-0): Variance to increase the allowable height of a fence from 4’ to 6’ for Joshua Cameron Marcum --- ## Full transcript running round cause all of my good times are waiting right there for me and she knows where I'll be when the sun goes down I'm a stand-by-bye woman man Our world turns around a little gold band And love leads us through life hand in hand I'm a stand by my woman man We fall asleep at night thinking ain't love grand That's why I'm a stand by my woman man When she's down She knows I'll be beside her Cause I'm not just her lover I'm her friend Our love keeps getting better And I'll gladly spend forever Standing by the woman who stands by her man I'm a stand-by-by-woman man Our world turns around a little gold band And love leads us through life hand in hand I'm a stand by my warm on man We fall asleep at night thinking eight love grand That's why I'm a stand by my warm on man I'm a stand by my warm on man We fall asleep at night thinking eight love grand That's why I'm a stand by my warm-on man That's why I'm a stand by my warm-on man Daddy won a radio He tuned it to a country show I was rocking in the cradle to the crying of a steel guitar Mama used to sing to me She taught me that sweet harmony Now she worries cause she never thought I'd ever really take it this far Singing in the bars and chasing that neon rainbow Living that honky-tonk dream Cause all I've ever wanted Is to pick his guitar and sound Just trying to be somebody Just wanna be heard and sing I'm chasing that neon rainbow Living that honky-tonk dream An Atlas and a coffee cup Five pickers and an old Dodge truck Heading down to Houston for a show on Saturday night Well, this overhead is killing me Half the time I sing Capri When the crowd's into it, Lord, it makes the thing I'm doing seem right Standing in Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. everybody to the Board of Adjustment meeting for July 13th, 2020. Before we start and go through our normal processes, Stephanie is going to make the COVID announcement and then she will also explain some of the Zoom procedures that we'll be using for today's meeting. So I will let Stephanie proceed. Okay, I'm moving Ms. Whitman into panelists. Ms. Whitman, I noticed that you were on there. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. As we go through the meeting, first, Mr. Gross will sound the agenda, which sort of places the cases in the order in which they'll be heard. For each case, the staff will make a presentation. then the applicant will be promoted to panelists and they can make their presentation. After that, we'll ask for citizens who would like to speak. If you would like to speak, I would ask that you raise your hand electronically and you'll be called on. Your video will not be shown. And right now I do see that we have one phone caller and we need to identify this person so we'll know which case they're here for. If you're calling from number 1-859-457-6872, I'm going to allow you to speak now. If you could identify yourself in which case you're interested in. Josh is on with Division of Engineering. Okay, thank you. So you're just sort of monitoring? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Okay, Mr. Chair, I believe I have covered everything. Okay, Joan, are you able to use a video? I think we'll allow him to talk. Yeah, I think Ms. Whitman is, she's muted. She does have to be on video in order to... Correct. Yes, so I just wanted to see if she had that capability. Because if not, she won't be able to vote or participate. Were you all able to select ask to unmute for Joan? Did you try that? I just tried that on. Does somebody have a cell phone for Joan or what to contact her? We can proceed. She just won't go to participate. We've got a quorum. Okay. Well, I'm going to go ahead and sound the agenda and work through the agenda while we wait for our technical issues with Ms. Whitman to be rectified. So once again, this is July 13th, 2020 hearing. The first item on the agenda for us to do is approval of the minutes. I believe that Donna sent those around to the board last week. Has everyone had an opportunity to review those? And raise your hand if you have any comments to those. Okay. So in that instance, I will entertain a motion from the board. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes for last month's meeting. I second. I've got a first for Mr. Glover, a second for Mr. Clark. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we will please both raise your hand and also physically raise your hand. So electronically and physically, if you approve this motion. I see it unanimous, and we'll have to mark this gentleman's not participating. however we want to do that in a minute. The next item is we need to swear in everyone who plans on speaking today. If you are in the citizen audience, so we will allow everyone to kind of talk for a brief second to swear you in. So what I need you to do is after we get everyone ready, unmute yourself if you're muted on your end and then you'll need to raise your right hand for me and then what we'll do and if you can remind me now you can ask them whether they were sworn in yes for each case that way we've got a double they won't be able to be on video no I understand that yeah but this way they can say yes for the record they should all be able to speak yeah so if everyone can please raise your right hand for me you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. And then, like I said, I will try to remember to ask each participant to confirm they were sworn in as we go through. So the next item is sound the agenda. We have a light agenda, but unfortunately we have a bunch of disapprovals and a maybe from the staff today, which is going to take some time to go through each one of those cases. normally if three case docket may last us 30 minutes we may be here for an hour or more depending on how much detail people want to get into so what we'll do is the first case is a variance appeal it we will I'm going to ask if the applicant is here this is for PLN VOA 20-26 Josh Markham if you could raise your hand if you were here for this case so we could bring you up and promote you as a panelist. Electronic raising. Yeah we got Josh Markham he's been promoted. Anyone else here on PLN BOA 20-26 who wants to speak on this case? Good afternoon Mr. Markham we can see you on video thank you. Do you have anyone here else here on your case? Josh can you hear me? Are you able to hear me Josh Markham? yeah i don't think we have audio for you mr markham here we go you says you're connecting now so we'll wait a second miss whitman thank you for joining us okay it's always nice to have a have a backup All right, Josh, are you able to speak now or hear us? It shows it's connecting to audio again. He may be logging out. Yeah, I'm not sure. Yeah, it looks like he left the meeting. We'll try to come back. His video is in. What I'm going to do, Mr. Markham, is I'm going to move on to the next case. This is just a sounding of the agenda while we try to... You may need to log off and then log back in. So, if we could, let's demote him back to the... and we'll come back, we'll circle back around to that case. Thank you. Okay, so the next item on the agenda is PLNBOA 20-28, and this is Ogden Hillier. If you could raise your hand electronically if you were here for the 2068 Manor Drive case. Okay. All right, Mr. Pohl. We're going to promote you to a panelist. You raise your hand. If you could please turn your video on for us, Mr. Pohl. Well, you guys have a whole team in there. We have a whole team, yes. That's good. If you could, Clive, if you could tell us who all is with you. I'd be happy to do that. I have the homeowners, Ogden and Beth Hilliard behind me here, and Justin Ostrander, who is part of my team, and I'm Clive Holt. all right well thank you very much um is there anyone here from the audience else who wants to participate in this particular case my daughter may be joining to observe that she's okay well if she calls in she'll pop up um and if we call your case if she wants to talk then she can just raise her hand we can promote her at that time. And we're all four of you sworn in by me? Yes. All right. Thank you very much. So staff has recommended due approval and if we can get Mr. Markham up. Okay so we're going to go ahead and demote you guys. And then the last case we have is PLN BOA 20-29 Thomas and Christina Parish, and this is for 260 Clay Avenue. I did see that Mr. Cato was nice enough to put that information in his name, so if we could go ahead and promote him. And is there anyone else here on the parish case? I see we have a parish last name. So bear with us a second. All right, if you guys could, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Cato, you can turn your videos on for us. Hello, gentlemen. How are you doing today? Good. real quick question the staff has recommended an approval of a lesser variance to increase the allowable FAR from .35 to .50 are you guys going to be willing to agree to that today or do we need to have a hearing on request? Okay, perfect we agree, we've already resubmitted a revised plan that complies with that. Awesome, well that moves you guys to the very first item on the agenda once I get the technical difficulties with Mr. Markham worked out. So we'll have your case heard first. So give us a second. We're going to put you down. Were you both sworn in? Yes. Thank you, gentlemen. We're going to demote you and we'll bring you back hopefully up in the next two to five minutes. Okay, so let's try to get Mr. Markham promoted again. Hello, Josh. Is he muted on his end? Mr. Markham, if you could unmute your audio, please. Okay, could you speak? Mr. Markham, are you able to hear me? If you can, give me a thumbs up. Mr. Markham, are you able to hear me? Did he have a cell phone? I don't know how it works on Zoom. Are you able to figure out how he's calling in? Autumn, do we have a telephone number for Mr. Markham? Yeah, it's on the agenda. He should be on the front here. We might have one in his own. Oh, I'm saying he does. I'm saying, like, so we can let him know that we can't hear him. We can only see him. And we're not going to be able to have his case for him. Yeah, we do have a phone number here. Well, maybe, I don't know how we go about. You can text him. Okay. Autumn, if you could text it to Tracy Wade, we'll try to call Mr. Markham and let him know that we can see him, but we cannot hear. And it appears he cannot hear us, and we will not be able to have this case heard if we can't have that issue fixed. I'd be willing to postpone this. um till next month um if that is the case we can maybe we can get it worked um next month and who knows maybe you guys could i doubt come to a resolution since the fences are in there but um but we can at least have it heard on next month's agenda so if you could text in her that just texted tracy his phone number um perfect all right all right what i'm going to do is i'm going to go let's go ahead and to devote Mr. Markham for now, and then we'll bring up the last case, which is the Parrish case. And we'll bring up Mr. Cato and Mr. Parrish. They did have a presentation for us, but he's... Yeah, I think... Yeah, that's what... All right, gentlemen, if you could unmute yourselves. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I was informed that you guys had submitted a presentation. I'm going to be honest with you. We'll see how it goes with the board on whether you need to give that presentation. so what i'll first start with is the staff has recommended um an approval of lesser variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 um and you are in agreement with that yes if you could say yes mr parrish yes thank you sir and then the staff's um recommendation for that approval is based upon the recommendations or two recommendations for conditions. Have you seen both those conditions? Yes. Yes. And you're agreeable to abide by those conditions? Yes. And just for the record, because I forgot to do this, this is case PLNBOA-20-029, Thomas D. and Christina Aurora Parish's request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.52 in order to construct a 725-foot square addition to an existing single-family residence at 260 Clay Avenue. So is there anyone here in the audience who would like to speak on this? Please raise your hand at this time. Thank you, ma'am. So Stephanie tells me there are no hands raised. So at this point, a gentleman, I'm going to open this up for the board to see if anyone from the board has any questions for Mr. Cato or Mr. Parrish on their application. All right. Hearing none. In that instance, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN BOA 20-29 Thomas and Christina Parrish's request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 in order to construct a 567 square foot addition to an existing single family residence. Mr. Glover, it's 725 feet. Mr. Chair, may I interrupt? Yes. The applicant indicated that their attic square footage that was calculated and shown on the original site plan was not correct and that number has changed so it may be best if we just don't specify the square foot addition say a new addition I think the submitted site plans that we've received and the conditions will take care of that being correct as long as the FAR is 0.50. Mr. Glover you're fine with that change in your motion? You want me to start over? That would work too just to clarify thank you sir. I move to approve PLN BOA 20 days 29 the parish's request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.50 in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residence within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential historic district overlay zone on property located at 260 Clay Avenue for the reasons stated by the staff in the report and subject to the two conditions attached. thank you mr glover do i have a second from a board member second i second the motion mr clark beat you out okay clark seconds um does anyone have um wanting discussion on this motion well hearing none or seeing no hands now i'll ask you to please both electronically and raise your hand if you were in favor of this motion i forgot how to vote electronically how do i do Oh, that's okay. You can get there you go. If you hit the raise hand button, which should be on your screen, Mr. Glover, that will show but I see a unanimous. Everyone vote in a favor. Show the record. Well, gentlemen, your application has been approved as modified today. And we wish you good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Have a great day. You're very welcome. Bye bye. Okay. So I spoke with Mr. Markham. He's going to video back in with his phone and we can get a different phone call, but 9 to 9. Okay. So Mr. Markham, if you're here, if anyone's here on that case, which is the property related at 1990 Mark Avenue, we are working with Mr. Markham to get him on. so for now we will keep him um uh as an attendee and if you are here on that case you will continue as an attendee and we will move over past that case and we will go ahead and call the next case um which is the plnboa 20-28 ogden hilliard and this is regarding their variance request related to property at 2068 Manor Drive. The applicant is present. If there's anyone in the audience or the attendees who want to speak on this, please raise your hand at this time. Well, it looks like the only people here are Mr. Pol's party. We will promote you if you can wait one second. Hello. we've got you guys back on video. Autumn is here. Since this was recommended for disapproval, we'll have Autumn give a presentation, unless you want to withdraw, which I doubt since you're here. So what we'll do is, Autumn, if you want to proceed with doing your presentation, and then once that is given, we'll have an opportunity for the board to ask questions and then we allow the applicant to give their presentation. So please proceed. All right I will share my screen with you all. All right the case before you now is PLN BOA 20-28 Ogden Hilliard requests a variance to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a new attached garage and covered patio in a single-family R1B zone at 2068 Manor Drive. Manor Drive is located, the property on Manor Drive is located here at the corner of Manor and Sealy Drive. Let me get on a little pointer guy. Here we go. It's a little bit clearer, sorry. And here on the right-hand side of the page you'll see an aerial showing the property as it exists today located at the corner of Manor and Sealy. This is about a third of an acre property containing a 2043 square foot house with an attached two-car garage here and a detached two-car garage back here. They currently have two driveways. The provisions of the zoning ordinance that we're looking at in this case are article 15 2b4 which requires a 30-foot street side yard setback, and Article 15-5, which addresses covered porches. Here we have a plat for the property, the original subdivision plat. This is the property here showing a 30-foot platted building line as well. So this is both a platted line as well as a zoning ordinance line. Oh, sorry. All right. Currently, the existing, sorry, bear with me. This site plan has gotten away from me. One second. All right. Here is the applicant's proposed plan showing their new two-car garage. So the existing garage is here. The applicant plans to convert this space into living space and construct a new two-car garage with the garage door facing the rear lot line so they would have a side entry access. They would move the driveway that currently exists here to here and the existing driveway up here to the two-car garage would remain. So the applicant has indicated that by moving the garage, they would be reducing the traffic at this corner by moving the driveway down to here. They are also solving an issue that they have currently regarding some steps going into the house from the garage. However, staff has recommended disapproval of the application based on the character of the general vicinity in the neighborhood. and going back to the PowerPoint I had up here are you all able to see this or is it still the site plan? Still the site plan. Okay let's see I'll have to change my share. That's no problem. Okay so as you can see looking at the aerial all of the houses along Sealy Drive this is the subject property here at 2068. All of the other houses along Sealy meet the 30-foot setback, so this departure to 10 feet would be significant in the neighborhood. We did not find that there was an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. They have a third of an acre property with an existing two-car garage attached and an existing detached garage, so we were unable to find special circumstances that justify the need for the variance. That coupled with the significant departure from the character of the neighborhood are the reasons that we've recommended disapproval today. And I will take any questions. Real quick, this is Brandon. It looks to me that the detached garage is quite a significant garage. It looks like it's over a thousand square feet. is that according to PVA it looks like the structure is 960 square feet so that's the size of the post-war detached cabin. I understand from the from the report from the staff report autumn that there is a an attached garage as well? Correct. And that's and the and the then the new proposed garage would convert some of that space into living area and some of it into the proposed two-car garage. The existing garage is located at the corner here where I'm pointing my red pointer. Yep. So that space would be converted into living space and the covered patio would be constructed here at this corner and the new proposed garage would be here. Okay. Autumn, is Ms. Jones with you? Yes, she is. Tracy, do we even have the authority at the Board of Adjustments to adjust a platted building setback lawn? Doesn't that have to go through the Planning Commission if we want to change a subdivision plaque? Okay we would have to approve the native okay okay just so the board and Miss Jones sorry Miss Wade's here with me she said that yeah we would have to approve it and then they would still have to get the subdivision can go through the subdivision process through the planning commission okay that that helps uh okay any questions from the board members for uh autumn or for staff at this time yeah i have a question for autumn yeah can you hear me autumn yes um is there any other you remove the uh the neighborhood site plan is there any other drive or buildings that or homes that have two two driveways? I will pull that image back up but I do not believe there are any others in the immediate vicinity so here we are up here is the subject property it does not appear that there are any other two driveway okay so it's it's unique already a little bit okay thank you and hey autumn go ahead and leave that up for now any other board members does anyone want to look at any of autumn slides in more detail before we move on to the applicant. She can share anything that she's presented so far. I have actually one more question. Autumn, is this a site triangle issue? It would not be a site triangle issue, no. The proposed garage is actually further from the corner than the existing garage, So the driveway that is closest to Manor and Sealy would be relocated further down Sealy. So it would not create any site issues. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else before we move to the applicant? All right. Anna, as always, Autumn is here to answer questions at any time during this case. So at this time, we will, if you could stop sharing your screen, Autumn. And we will bring Mr. Pohl. You are now up. Do they have a presentation? They do. If he's ready, I can share that. Okay. Clyde, if you're ready, we will go ahead and have your presentation pulled up, or do you want to speak first? We can go ahead and share the screen. Shall I do that now? Yes. Oh, wait. Oh wait, no. Tracy says we do that. So bear with us. Here it is. Can you see it on your hand slide? I sure can, but it will not be in the order that I would like them in. Can I not share my screen? I don't think that's how the procedure works. However, though, the good news is we can switch. Well, I mean, it's the same information. The issue is this is what he entered in the record for our record, so if we can show something with different information, we'll run into a bit of an issue. If it's just in a different order... Okay, hey, Clyde, is your information, is it going to be the exact same slides? No new slides? There is one new slide, yes. Yeah, I think what Tracy's telling me is for the record, everything had to be submitted already this morning. Okay, all right. Well, what I'd like to request in that case is can we quickly preview the order in which you have these slides? Of course, yeah, we can flip through. I can see that. That would be very helpful. Yeah, it looks like there are only six. So, and we can switch those and you can tell us which number you want them in. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Now you've got, you've got the slides that we need. So what I'd like to see is if you could scroll up. Let's, this is in reverse order. I think you're very nearly. So if you would scroll down to the, the image of the book called the houses of Richard Eisenhower. Yeah, that's it. Okay, we'll start there. All right, perfect. And we will, we may need to skip around a little bit, but I'll do my best to help everyone navigate through it. So first of all, I want to say we are very flexible. So you tell us we can take breaks as we move things around. So don't worry about that. It won't interfere with how you present. Good. Okay, thanks very much. So as I say, I'm thankful to be able to present to you and attempt to make our case for what we believe is a well-founded request. I will speak to the architectural issues, if you will. And at the conclusion of my presentation, I'd like to ask Beth Hilliard to step up for just a few minutes and bring her perspective to bear. So beginning here, I want to speak to the reason we were hired in many cases, one might say, was because of our experience with Eisenhower Houses and our appreciation of the value that they bring to a neighborhood. So one of the cases that the staff made against approval was that what we were proposing was uncharacteristic. And I would argue that what we were proposing is entirely characteristic with the neighborhood. In fact, we have a long list of approving neighbors who've agreed. You should have in your list of parts there an email from at least one. And we've gotten verbal agreements from virtually everyone else to whom we sent letters. This book, the forward of which was written by my former partner and brother Graham Pohl, is the Houses of Richard B. Eisenhower. And so the issues that I want the board to bear in mind is that what's appealing about the Eisenhower Houses? And we've seen a huge increase in interest in mid-century modern, generally speaking, and a huge increase in requests from us as contemporary architects to attend to the needs of modernizing these largely out-of-date constructs so that they not only maintain the character of the original, but in fact solve lifestyle issues, if you will, that are now different than they were when these were built 50 years ago, 60 years ago in some cases. So what is it that's appealing about them? They do a beautiful job of clarifying public versus private uses in a living space. They speak to human scale, meaning they're not overly grand. They're not overbuilt like many contemporary or modern-day suburban homes, which are more like small cities. and their low profile, I think, and the effort on our part, the intention on our part to maintain that low profile, even if we expand the footprint, is our primary objective. So I'd like you to notice this book on the left, that Eisenhower home, which has a prominent spot on the cover of the book, is on essentially a flat site. You can see that there's a very gently sloping driveway that leads up to essentially a low slung, low profile carport on the left. Our house on the right shows the garage, again, in a low profile condition, but in a very different site, one in which the house is elevated and both streets on which this house is placed are sloping toward that corner. And we'll, if we could go to the next slide, by the way, all of the neighbors that we have spoken with have seen images of what we're proposing. And that explains why they are, in fact, in favor. If you would go to the next slide, or two slides up, I believe it was. Yeah, one more after this one. That's it. Okay, that one. So now, I want to point out here again, And this image shows sloping of three planes. The one nearest to us in both images is Sealy Drive. And it slopes quite dramatically from right to left in this case. And Manor slopes down to this intersection from the distance. And then, so as a result, in order to get that low profile roof line to work in any condition, including the existing one, we would have to elevate the profile, which simply will not maintain the character of the neighborhood and that quality that is so valued. Right now, this garage does not meet the needs of the homeowner, though it appears to be a two-car garage. In fact, it functions like a single-car garage because of the low headroom. but perhaps most importantly there are there are three elements to this garage which render it unsafe the first one is the steep driveway so unlike the image to the left on the cover of the book this driveway slopes dramatically upward from ceiling with no flat spot in front of the driveway and therefore provides a safety hazard it's in fact a 15 slope and in fact the owner's father injured himself on that steep slope not too long ago. The width of the garage with the low profile roof on the left side does not render it useful for them. It opens up, the mouth of the garage opens up in a very visible way. And that's something that we would change and thereby protect the aesthetic experience of the pedestrian in the neighborhood. And lastly, and certainly not least, the proximity of that driveway to the intersection there at the corner of Seeley and Manor, which you can see in the right-hand image, renders both traffic, vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic problematic. It clogs the entire experience for both entities. And so by relocating the curb cut from where it is to the right of those images to about mid block or mid property, if you consider their property front to back, we're placing a new curb cut well uphill on Sealy. And that does several things for it. It improves the safety of the corner. it allows what is now the garage a portion of that to become a covered patio which would further strengthen the the engagement of our homeowners with their neighbors as they walk by as I say that would become essentially their front porch on a house that doesn't have a front porch and that's a big driver here the the possibility that the current owners could engage their neighbors as they walk by. Right now that's an impossibility. So it improves the safety. It eliminates the slope of the driveway because as we move to the right, as we move the curb cut to the right, we're moving the elevation up and therefore allowing the vehicles to exit Sealy and drive in an L shape right into the right on the same elevation as the living level of the main living level of the floor. And the third quality that we're improving is that visibility when that garage door is wide open. And that's a good segue into our next heading, if you will, or our next category, which is about aging in place. A really critical piece for these owners who have lived in the neighborhood for many years. If you would scroll up one slide, please. Thank you. So here you can see now where it says garage level, that is at the top of that steeply sloping driveway, and the level change from that parking area, even if you get to the top of that slope and are able to park in that garage, there's a 46-inch differential between the parking level and the interior level of the house. In the upper right-hand corner, you can see there are five risers right now that make that attempt to make that change. And clearly, when we consider aging in place, the definition of which is that there are no or minimal obstructions to impede access, whether on foot or in a wheelchair, this is not an acceptable condition. So again, by moving the curb cut, which would be on the left side of your screen, and moving it to the right side, essentially in line with the right edge of the house. It allows us to bring the vehicles in at living level, and it will allow these homeowners, who, again, have lived here for many years, to age in place. And that is a primary driver for us. We find frequently, as we do a considerable amount of residential design work in and around Lexington, that aging in place is a modification that is highly desirable. People love their neighborhoods, they love their neighbors, and they don't want to have to navigate this kind of difficult differential. They want to maintain mobility. That 46-inch differential, if you will, If I were to translate that into the length of a ramp, according to ADA standards, it would be at a very minimum, excluding the 12-foot run and then a landing, it would be at a very minimum 50 feet long. And it doesn't take a mathematician to recognize that that simply does not work for this house. The next slide I would ask you to move to is one, I believe, just below this, perhaps two. That one, yes. Thank you, with the yellow text. So here again, we're showing the existing garage level and that 46-inch differential to the living level. The point, however, that I want to make with this slide has to do with side yard impact. So a comment that was made by more than one neighbor is that this proposal that we are offering would in fact be less intrusive than the fence line that is there now. That fence line would be diminished in length, and while it is two feet off of the property line, which is right on the sidewalk, what we're proposing to do is simply remain consistent with the entire length of manor, which has a 10-foot side yard setback in every instance. There was a comment about Sealy. This house, in fact, there was a comment about Sealy Drive adhering to the front yard setback of 30 feet. This is, in fact, the side yard for Manor Drive as the house faces Manor and the address is Manor Drive. So all we're asking for is the same treatment that all of the other houses on Manor Drive currently enjoy. And that's a 10-foot setback. The next slide would be the one below this one, please. And again, there is support that speaks to that point very specifically from a neighbor named Steve Burchett who lives at 2083 Norburn. and if you'd like if you have not received a copy of that email we'd be happy to forward it to the board we we didn't learn until last Friday that those kind of supportive emails would be acceptable and so we had a little short a little short notice there and we could very likely gather more if that would help our case okay and then the last the last question that I would like to address before I invite Beth to step up, is the question of alternatives. And for me, leaving the garage where it is simply is not a viable alternative for the reasons that I have described. We've got tremendous elevation problems, and so it simply cannot stand. The only other two options would be to park on the side of the house in the side yard setback without the benefit of cover. And as I have suggested, one of our primary drivers here in the design of this solution is to accommodate aging in place, a really critical component of anything that we do with this house, while maintaining the character of the neighborhood and the value of an isaacard design. The design solution, while we have not looked at it, does exactly that. It leaves that low-profile garage roof fully intact. It simply moves the garage function a little bit to the east or rather toward Norborne, but maintains the existing roof lines that are so highly valued and covered it. So parking on the side there in an uncovered condition would be one option, but obviously nowhere near our preference. As you all know, as we get older, we want to be able to get out of our car undercover, and we want to be able to grab two arms full of groceries and make our way easily into a home, and that's simply not possible on the side there. And the other possibility would be to park in the rear yard. And I would point out what you're seeing in this image is in fact a series of three triple blazing doors that reflect kitchen dining and living room volumes. And so placing a garage between that very public portion of this house and the rear yard would also be unacceptable. So we have quite honestly studied every option and only reluctantly have come forward to ask for what we believe is the right one, which again, preserves the characteristic of the house and the highly valued mid-century modern nature of the house, preserves the characteristic of the neighborhood and allows these homeowners to age gracefully in a neighborhood they know and love among neighbors that they know and love. Okay, and with that, I would like to invite Beth Hillier to share some personal thoughts. Thank you very much for allowing me a few minutes. Thank you. Hello. I want to thank you all first for your time that you're taking to hear our take today. Clive has already covered all the architectural reasons very eloquently and professionally. Now I'd just like to add more to the human side of this request. The Hilliard family has lived happily in this neighborhood. My mother-in-law, Mary Hilliard, moved into our permanent home at 2056 Norborn in the 70s. We then moved into the home in the early 90s after she passed away. We loved the neighborhood so much that when we stumbled onto the opportunity to buy the 2068 manor home in the early 2000s, we were quick to go ahead and make another commitment to the neighborhood. doing so with the thought that maybe my aging parents could live there at some point. And we anticipated that our children would live there as they did after they finished college. What we didn't anticipate, though, was that the home's infrastructure wouldn't provide for living needs of expected homes today. It's, as you can imagine, it is in need of new infrastructure and very other costly repairs. But again, we are willing to invest into this neighborhood to improve the value of the home and the property and preserve the iconic Eisenhower design, all while making it more livable for us and acceptable to the neighborhood. now we're looking to the future again and we're planning for the manhouse to be our home as we age to the point where we can't maintain our current home with its lakefront property and and that would be beyond possibly our capabilities at some point so honestly we've considered tearing this structure down and frankly that would be the easiest and most financially feasible option but again we are committed to this neighborhood and we finally just decided to pursue the help of PRP architects to help us find a way to preserve the house while making it more liberal to my contemporary standards so we just hope that you can see that we're fully committed to this neighborhood and community and that we only want what is best for it so much so that we've talked to everybody in the 200 yard radius and have even talked with quite a few members outside of that radius and we've only heard very kind and supportive comments about our plans to improve the neighborhood with no objections. Nobody was bothered by the variance request and frankly nobody really understood it. I found myself explaining that you know the same variance is required of the front yard as the side yard and they didn't see that that was necessary. So again thank you for your consideration. We really do appreciate the work you do and we sincerely hope that you can see that this would be a good thing for those of us who live in this neighborhood. So if you have any questions in terms of concerns that you might have. Does anyone from the board have any questions for the applicant or her representatives at this time? I do. I understood Mr. Pohl to say that the setback along Sealy Drive was 10 feet, but I I see in the staff report that it's 30 feet along both Seeley and Manor Drive. So which is correct? No, you're correct. The current setback is, in fact, 30. We are asking for a 10-foot setback as part of this variance. Okay. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. This is Mr. Clark. I'd also like to ask some clarification why the garage could not go at the rear of the house. I know, Mr. Pohl, you mentioned that, but I was not clear why that is not possible. If you could clarify that for me, I'd appreciate it. And I'd also like to add that I do have an affinity for mid-century modern, so I certainly appreciate your concern about the house itself. Yes. So can we pull up an image again? That may be the best way to do this. Is that possible? We can. So we're going to share screen again, and I guess we'll go to the one that showed that we're living. Well, yes. Or if you could scroll down to the photo on the cover of the Isaac card book. There you go. So if you look at the house there on the right, which is the house in question, 2068 Manor Drive, everything to the right of that stairway leading up to the front door is in fact public space. It's the garage is the one private intrusion into what would be public space. And everything to the left of that stair leading up to the front door is entirely private. And so it's the backside of that right hand volume that opens up that accommodates living room, kitchen and dining room. And their primary orientation, as you can see, which currently is blocked by the existing garage, is toward the rear. And so it's really critical for any of us that our living areas in which we entertain and engage the outdoors remains unimpeded by a garage. And that's in fact what's happening here at the front of the house and part of the problem with this house. We have the garage sort of interfering, if you will, with the connection between the indoors, the living space, and the outdoors. And all we're asking for is to retain that connection to the rear yard visually and otherwise. Does that answer your question? question? I'm still not clear why that's that affects the back of the house. Okay if we could scroll down or if we could go back to the yeah let's go ahead and scroll down here. So in this plan if you could scroll to the right just a little bit you can see the the dining room and the living room there at the rear and there's a dashed line that says living level opens visually to the rear yard and a garage in that location would be unacceptable because it would render that two-thirds of the open living area unusable and completely devoid of natural light. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Pohl I have a question another question Mr. Pohl can one second before we move on to your question I'm sorry to interrupt what I wanted to ask is this plan that's up on the board right now Mr. Pohl is different than was submitted with the application. That's correct. Yes, and this plan, we might be amenable to this as a fallback position, but had in fact hoped to not share this with you until we understood your resistance to a two-car garage. The owners are unequivocal in their commitment to pursuing a two-car garage. However, we have discussed the fallback position, and this would represent that fallback position if a two-car garage is entirely unacceptable. Thank you, sir. Sorry, Tommy. Proceed. No, that's okay. I appreciate that. If you don't mind, keep that up, if you would. Just go back to that. yeah thanks and just to clarify for everyone the this planning staff has not reviewed this proposal is my understanding so this is not what it's for us i understand i just want to take a look at it yeah i appreciate it no i think because one of the uh one of the uh uh one of the things that i that i wanted to ask mr pole if they'd considered was you said that the existing garage, the attached garage, is 46 inches below the grade of the house. Have you given any thought to raising that garage itself another 46 inches? Yes, that was the first thing we considered. But in fact, the roof lines would have to be entirely reinvented for that to work. So it really doesn't work. And furthermore, it only continues the congestion there at the corner. So we really wanted to introduce the front porch aspect so that the owners can engage socially with their neighbors. And we wanted to move the curb cut, which is poorly located. Quite honestly, this house was very likely not designed for this site. It was very likely a plan that was placed on the site. And I think that's why almost accidentally the garage is at the steepest portion of both streets at the corner there and close to the corner. Yeah, I would agree with you. Thank you. You're welcome. I guess I just want to reiterate that the owners would only very reluctantly accept this solution or some variation on this theme their primary needs are for a two-car garage so the detached garage by the way does not as you can see it shows up in the upper left corner of this plan in no way assists in the day to day living of a couple that aspire to age in place it is really primarily intended for the homeowners beautiful car collection and his hobby as a car enthusiast and craftsman. So this garage we're proposing is about daily life for the couple. Thank you, sir. Any more questions from the board or either applicant or the staff? Okay, thank you, Mr. Poll. At this point, I will close the public portion of the hearing. So we will bring you on if there are more questions for the applicant, but I will open it up for anyone on the board who wants to either discuss or to move forward with the motion. Well, I don't hear any discussion. well i have uh i have a i guess a point of clarification uh as i understand that they're asking for uh an additional 10 feet so that the setback on seeley drive would would instead of being 30 feet it would be 20 feet is that correct am i no i think it's going to be i think what it is is there's going to be 20 feet no 10 feet yeah it's 30 feet now they want to be 10 so they want to be able to move the building 20 feet closer to the roadway okay okay that's what I first understood and then from the discussion I got confused thanks the diagram that we saw was carports and that was that was 20. Right. That was an alternate plan. Right. Right. I understand that. That's not part of the application. And so it looks like the while most homes in the area are required to have a 10 foot side yard, this one's on a corner. And according to the subdivision plot is subject to the 30 feet. and I think also under the zoning ordinance too is subject to the 30 feet foot setback on Sealy Drive and so what they want to do is reduce that 30 feet on Sealy to 10 feet on Sealy. And one of the original questions to Autumn was whether or not there are any other houses along Sealy or in the neighborhood that have a 10 foot setback and I think the answer was no and we looked at and we looked at the neighborhood uh I don't know I can't I don't know what that was a rendition or a or a plat or whatever whatever that showed that there weren't any other houses that had a 10-foot setback is that correct that is correct okay all right Mr. Glover has put his mute back on so I think he is currently done does anyone else have any questions just for beat him yeah i think the comment i just would say is um you know we see uh i do believe that the fence line which is a couple feet off the sidewalk um that sight line does get reduced coming down sealy or opened up a little bit to the corner by moving even the two-car garage back where it is and where it's asked to be. So I do think that helps coming down Sealy Drive to Manor Drive, even though it's going to appear as though, in my eyes, from that direction, that this has been improved, even though it's encroached into the 30-foot right-of-way. um you know coming the other way around manor turning on to seeley you know because it's steps uh the covered or proposed covered patio steps to the garage that might feel a little better as well um so i don't know i'm not against it uh i you know it does encroach but i think under the guiding of the architects and, you know, feeling as though that they'll do this type of home the right way, I'm probably more in line to accept their ask. I think that I was persuaded by a lot of things that Mr. Pohl said about the reasons for the design in this proposal and particularly the moving back the driveway from the corner of Sealy and Manor. However, I'm troubled by the fact that it's going to encroach on the 30-foot setback where no other houses on that street setback, only 10 feet, they're all 30 feet. So that's my difficulties. Other than that, I think this argument for this design does everything that they want it to do. But the trouble is that it it croaches on that 30 foot setback and is the only one on the block and in the neighborhood that does. And I have trouble with that. I agree, Mr. Glover. If the neighbor, the adjacent property owner on Sealy wants to now bring their house 10 feet closer to the road, are we, you know, I know each case is separate, but I'm not comfortable, I'm not comfortable bringing it on 10 feet from the right away. Yeah, me too. That's my feeling. Now, it is true, however, that the fence is closer closer to the sidewalk than 30 feet? How close is that fence to the road? Two feet. Two feet from the sidewalk. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Matthew. And the neighbors, many of the neighbors that live, especially the neighbors that live straight from behind, sees the garage as an improvement, moving the fence line further in, in addition to the safety achieved by moving the driveway. He sees it as a much improved situation for the fence to be less encouraging, like the garage there. is there a provision whereby this property as a corner property could be set aside as an exception again if you choose to define the neighborhood as man or drive we're not doing anything different than what has been done up and down land drive. They're 10-foot side yard setbacks. We're, in fact, opening up the visibility at the corner, at the intersection, and therefore improving safety. We're removing vehicular congestion from the pedestrian traffic, so improving the fabric of the neighborhood in that way. My question to the board, and I don't know the answer to this. Well, Mr. Paul, I'll interrupt you. If this were to be approved, we would work on the conditions. And generally, one of the conditions would be the special circumstances for this lot to allow the approval of what your request is, in which case we would attempt to make it such that nobody would bring this before us and say, well, you did it here, so now the floodgates are open. But, yeah, we attempt to do that. So that would be addressed if this would be appropriate. Okay. And, you know, another piece that I'd like to fold into the dialogue is that the setbacks by nature don't recognize elevation changes. And that is the thing that separates, that sets this property apart from all of the others. none of the others had these kinds of combination of elevation challenges and congestion issues. And none of those neighbors along Sealy have expressed any concern whatsoever. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Any other? Autumn, I was trying to scroll through my email since I was at my office to find, And then we just do a case, I think it was last month, where we had the corner lot that the plat was different from the building setback lines and we looked at that quite extensively. That was the one, they were in an ND1 neighborhood, so they had design overlay characteristics. Okay. It was a little bit of a different situation, but it was a similar corner plot. Yeah. Okay. okay but i don't i don't think the house is 10 feet off the sidewalk no it was still like 30 something this was a it was a it was it was because the overlay and the advertising was causing the issue but the setback itself was still well beyond what we're discussing today um this is an instance in which if it were less of a request i would have more not saying I would approve it at the end of the day, but I think to me that the request to go to 10 feet is more than I can swallow. However, I'm only one person on the board, so we can continue discussing. And if you want, the easy thing is if you could raise your hand, not physically, but electronically, electronically that way I can make sure if you want to ask a question and I don't actually talk over you. Does anyone else have any anyone from the board have any more comments or questions? And if anyone wants to vote to approve this application does anyone at that point want to request the recess from me so that we you can then talk with legal about revised conditions okay here see no comment to that does anyone on the board want to make a motion this time somebody has to there we go mr. Glover yeah I unmuted myself I'm still not clear about how to raise my hand sorry about that that's okay I learned last month let me see if this doesn't no that doesn't do it either Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we, with respect to PLN VOA 20-28 Ogden Heddy's request for a variance that reduced the required side street yard setback from 30 to 10 feet in order to construct a new attached garage and covered patio and single family residential zone on property located at 2068 Manor Drive. a move that we disapprove the request for the reasons that we discussed in this in this hearing that are on the record for the reasons that are in the case report and for the reasons of the two reasons that are cited at the end of the staff report where the staff recommends disapproval thank you mr glover i have a second i second the motion miss whitman seconds um any discussion on the motion uh hearing none then we'll put it to a vote vote in favor please raise your hand i have mr glover miss mr clark whitman myself miss carter please put your hands down all those against please raise your hands I've got mr. Needham and mr. Walker against the motion the motion carries the application has been denied this is not prohibit you from talking with on and further about making a revised application for a project but but but this project as proposed will not be to move forward. Thank you very much. If we could demote them from the panel. Were we able to get Mr. Markham? It appears that Mr. Markham is on the list. Okay. Would you like to promote him? Please. Checking just with the board real fast. I'm assuming since we've only been here a little over an hour, we can continue, but if anyone needs a a break for a couple minutes. You can electronically raise your hand so you don't have to punch yourself out, but we can do that if you so choose. All right, so we will proceed with the next case. Mr. Markham, if you could go ahead and turn your camera on for us. And I am now calling the case variance appeal PLN BOA 20-26 Markham regarding the height of a fence located at 1990 Markham. Mr. Markham, are you there? Yes, sir. Yes, we can hear you. And you were sworn in earlier? Earlier, I could not hear anything. Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and swear you at now. If you could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. What we'll do now is you can put your hand down. What we'll do now, if you want to go ahead and put yourself on mute, we will have Autumn give her presentation. We will then allow the board to ask questions of Autumn on the staff's presentation. And once she is complete, we'll let you have an opportunity to give your presentation. And then, once again, the board can ask questions. It will be a very similar process to the last case that hopefully you were able to hear. Thank you, sir. So, Audra, if you want to proceed. All right, I will share my screen. All right. This application is a variance request to increase the allowable height of a fence that is within three feet of the public right-of-way in a side street side yard from four feet tall to six feet tall in an R1C zone at 1990 Mark Avenue. Subject property is located generally between Georgetown Road and Citation Boulevard right here. The property is about 6,300 square feet and contains a 925 square foot house located directly across the street from a public park. Here you can see an aerial of the subject property showing the fence in question as it has already been constructed. All right. So I think we're all pretty familiar with the provision of the zoning ordinance regarding fences in the side street side yard, but we'll revisit that. So if a fence is located within three feet of the public right-of-way, so within three feet of the back of the sidewalk, it can be four feet tall. Once you get to three feet, you can have a six-foot tall fence. The subject property has a fence that is located 12 inches from the public right of way. So this dimension here is about 12 inches. So they would be allowed to have a four foot tall fence here, or if the fence were to be moved back an additional two feet, it could be six feet tall. This is an instance of a fence being constructed out of accordance with the approved permit. So here you'll see we have the approved drawings from building inspection and the building permit, both of which note the provision that the fence must be a minimum of three feet back from the sidewalk. That's noted here on the approved drawing and here on the building permit. So these were, in this case, a fencing permit was secured prior to construction of the fence, but it was not constructed in accordance with the fence. So for that reason, we have recommended disapproval. Another factor that went into this decision was the fact that the property is located just across the street from a public park. There's a concept referred to as shy distance, which is the gap between pedestrian facilities and buildings or fences. And this is based on the level of comfort that a person feels walking directly adjacent to a building wall or a fence. And that is typically larger distance than 12 inches. So that's the reasoning behind the zoning ordinance requirement for the three-foot setback for a six-foot tall fence is to allow this shy distance to make pedestrians feel more comfortable. And we feel that that is especially important when you're considering access to public facilities like parks. And there were no special circumstances that would justify the need for this variance. In the past, some of the fences that you have approved to be six-foot tall that were a little bit closer, There have been issues with existing tree roots and things like that or sort of odd shaped lots where the fence couldn't go in a straight direction. But those do not appear to be the circumstances in this location. It would be very easy for a compliant fence to have been constructed. And since it was noted on both the site plan and the building permit, And additionally, in an email sent to the applicant prior to his submittal of the drawings by building inspection last year, we are recommending disapproval. Anna, real quickly, that email to the applicant, was that email to the applicant or to his contractor? I believe it was directly to the applicant. I don't think he was working with the contractor. Okay. So the applicant received prior notice that it needed to be three feet off the fence before it was built. that's correct and then also the permit that was issued says build it three feet off the sidewalk okay just want to make sure for the record um do you have anything else you want to add on i didn't mean you never look no i think that was it thank you ma'am um anyone from the board have any questions for uh autumn at this time? Tommy? Yes, I do. Autumn, about sidewalks, I presume, without knowing, that sidewalks are constructed precisely designed at a particular location. Otherwise, the ordinance would not base their measurements on a sidewalk. Are all sidewalks of standard width and distance from curbs? I was going to say, Autumn, do you have an answer for this? That's a bit of a more complicated question because we have a wide variety of sidewalks within our community. There are certainly standards to which they are built now, and there have historically been certain standards, but I can't speak to this particular sidewalk's history. Well, I know under the subdivision regulations, in the right of way there are now at least for if it's a residential collector versus arterial versus local there are how much space between the roadway itself and the sidewalk and most of those were even though they were informal in the past i'm not sure when the subdivision regularly started the standard now the minimum is five and a half feet from the back of the curb to the sidewalk. So the minimum, can you guys hear Ms. Wade? Not very well. Okay she says the minimum now for a residential street is five and a half feet from the curb to the sidewalk. And that's the planting or utility strip, then sidewalks have a very long period of time, then four feet, now they're five. But the typical configuration in the back of the sidewalk is the front B line, so the end of the right of the road, and the front or side yard for the front. And so that sounds very precise. I have a what if question. If the sidewalk were not here, would this fence be in compliance? No. Why not? That would be measured from the three feet from the property line, from the public right of way, wherever that happens to start. Okay. And the public right of way is at least on the inside of the sidewalk. Is that right? I think it ends on the... That's the most common figure. Okay. The edge of the sidewalk is the property line. But which edge? Yeah, the inside. House edge or the road edge? The house edge. The house edge. So the sidewalk is normally within the right of the way. Yeah. Right. Got you. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions for staff? That was a good question, Mr. Clever. Okay. Well, thank you, Autumn. Sit tight. We may have more questions at this point. Mr. Markham, you can unmute yourself and you may proceed with why you should be allowed to have a four-foot – no, wait. I'm sorry. Have a six-foot fence in this location rather than a four-foot fence. Then starting with why you didn't – I would like to hear, first off why you didn't build it like cope like the building inspector told you. So I had a difficult process on getting the actual fence permit accepted. As you can tell there it's not very professional at least not as much as the one I seen in the last case here. It's just a drawing and so I ended up having to do the permit like two or three times and my sister actually ended up finally getting it approved and she lives in Hopkinsville Kentucky so when I when it finally did get approved I just like send her a text and asked her I said can you look up on the website and see if the fence got approved. And she just sent me yes. And me and my uncle actually did the fence. I didn't have a contractor. You asked if an email had got sent to the contractor. I've never actually seen an email with any sort of list of things that needed to be done. I'm not sure if I didn't have the right email or if I just didn't check it. So I don't have an excuse there. But it was just a mistake on that behalf. I own up to that, just not seeing that. And so my uncle actually, when we started to do the holes, he did it like 10 inches. And the existing chain link fence was at like eight inches. I told him, I said, no, we had to restart right away. I moved it back to 12 inches because we had started off wrong. And I knew I put 12 inches on there. so what I also did was I went on the internet and I looked up like was there any safety reasons why how far off of a sidewalk should you build a fence because I thought the concrete when it hardened might mess with the sidewalk so I tried to be as safe as possible but it ended up still not working out for me I guess but you know just like in that last case they said that their fence was only two feet off the sidewalk. I've been all over town and found them. I have like a ton of pictures. I guess it doesn't help my case because I didn't upload them on here of just fences that are only like a couple inches off the sidewalk or a foot off the sidewalk. I especially have them in the like Bryan Station area, but I can't say that I did see too many in my neighborhood. on the adjacent corner lot from my house they also have a chain link fence but I guess if it's chain link it just it doesn't really matter if it's that close to the sidewalk I'm assuming Mr. Markin you probably use nails and not screws we used um we use those the nails with the glue on them um I can't remember what they're called Now, my uncle is a pretty good carpenter. He really did most of the work, but I helped him dig all the holes and set the posts and stuff. So I tried to do what I could to help him out. He used the Pazload glue nails. That's what they are, two-inch Pazload nails. Yeah, and once you nail those in and they get hot, they're in the last. So it'd really be a pain in the butt, and I couldn't do it myself. I definitely need him to help me. And I know he's busy. I don't know. I mean, if I detect, I'm just not sure when I could get it even back up. And the main reason why I wanted the fence was because I have a mean dog. He's a hundred pound brown lab and he's just, he's just mean. And the wood fence was the best way for me to give him some leeway to be able to go outside and not have to be on a leash every day. So the fence was mainly for him. And another thing, if I have to move the fence back two more feet into the yard, I have an existing, like, shed in the yard. And it's going to sound lazy, but I'm not going to be able to get the riding mower back in there. So I have to take out the push mower or just weed eat, like, a good section of land back there just because the mower won't fit. that's kind of a pain but I have to do what I have to do. Well Mr. Markham I tell you yeah I like you but I have I personally had an issue with keeping the fence like it is but I'll open it up to the to the board members. Does it does it matter like if I have like all my neighbors love it. If we could look at the pictures of it again, that'd be probably a little bit helpful. I mean, it looks great. Oh, no, it's beautiful. We all got the color photos in our package. So, no, it's a good fit. As well as asking you whether you use nails or screws. The good news is a Sawzall will even cut through those nails. Mr. Neato can confirm that um with this well i have us all yeah uh so but like i said i'm only one person on the committee i mean on the board if um this helps at all i mean i was 19 when i bought the house i'm i have a good start i mean i'm doing heating and air and um i helped do the fence myself i was just i just didn't realize about if it needs if i knew that it needed to be the three feet and would have seen it I would have put it at the three feet so that was just a mistake on my part yeah no trust me I've got cousins that do heating and air and you remind me of them which is why I think I like you so much um because I could see them having done the same things you did um Mr. Glover uh a point of clarification I as I understand it and as I have tried to read the coordinates on the fly. If the fence were four feet tall, it wouldn't be a problem. Is that right, Autumn? That is correct. And if it were more than three feet back from the right of way, it could be six feet. So, you know, but it can't be both. It can't be six feet and inside of three feet. So what you're going to have to do is either cut that down to a four foot fence or move it back to where it's outside of three feet from the right of way. Is that correct, Autumn? That is correct. OK, thanks. Just a clarification. Mr. Markham, it makes you feel better. We made somebody remove a brick wall they built. That was six feet tall within two years. So sometimes our rulings are not fun. so like if the if the problem is it being so close to the sidewalk it's because of people that um i can't remember what they said earlier is because it was it just wasn't far enough somebody like maybe like fell off a bike or something but no the the problem is the zoning where it says it's got to be three feet off and the zoning ordinance has adopted what is called the shy setback so that people feel comfortable. And the fact that you have a dangerous dog in that backyard is one of the reasons why to keep it three feet off. So when I'm walking down the sidewalk with my kid, your dog doesn't feel like he's right on top of me barking the entire time I'm walking the fourth boundary of your property. So cutting it down to four feet wouldn't be a good idea. It may not work for your dog. you may be able to jump the fence, but it would work for our purposes of you be in compliance. If it was four feet tall, you'd be in compliance. Wait one second. I got Mr. Needham and then Ms. Barger next. Yeah, Josh, I feel for you. I've done some stuff like that and it's frustrating to have to take it out or adjust had I known from the get-go what you live and learn a little bit. Yeah, I think you build a great fence. It's just, you know, you're going to have, you could take it down to four feet and that's an option. You know, you don't even have to do that. I think on that, on that curved side there, what's the street? On Kathy Lane, you wouldn't have to remove it down on the other side. So that, or at least in the back, you wouldn't have to either. I think I'm correct. Right, Autumn? in the along the back property line it can be six feet and along the um the property line that you share with another house it could be it so it's just the portion that that comes across from your house to um the street and then the part along the street yes that so josh that's an that's an option i mean you know you have to choose which one but i you know the challenge for us is you know this is um you know it's it's kind of uh we got a we would set a probably bad precedence here if we were to let you keep it and no one else and i know when you look around the city things look a lot different at times on other properties and there's a lot of exceptions a lot of stuff that has been there that you know hasn't even been caught yet so yeah i feel for you but that those are probably your best options I think or your only options. Oh everyone just for everyone's clarification and Tracy Wade has reminded me that these fencing regulations did change about a decade ago and so fences that may have been built prior to ten years ago may be closer than what the current regulation is which is three feet off the sidewalk and the reason they were changed is to once again open up space for people to be comfortable and utilize sidewalks more often. So if I was to just cut down that side two feet for now but I wanted to move it back so I just cut it down for now and then in the future without getting like a permit I can just move it back to three feet or I have to go well you still need a permit if you're putting up a fence you have to go through the permitting process but currently if you were to be denied today you can go out there with your chalk line and take your circular saw and go all the way down but I would probably talk with autumn and staff first to make sure you're cutting down only what you need to cut down or Or, I'm not sure, have you talked with Aubrey about this fence? Prior to hearing today? Yeah, I believe we talked with her. My mom has talked. Okay, and she'll tell you exactly which portions are in violation and which ones are not in violation. Would you like me to throw up the aerial real quick? Yeah, I have a question about it. And then, Raquel, did you have a question while she's sharing, screening? I was going to say the same thing Chad said. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Okay. All right. So the portion of the fence here and along. Sorry, my Zoom panel is in the way. Here we go. This portion of the fence, can you see my red pointer? and here can be six feet tall. Yes. The portion along the street here and across to your house is the portion that is out of compliance and would need to be knocked down to four feet tall or moved in an additional two feet. So the front, the fence at the right there? Yes. That would need to be four feet. Okay. how long do i have um to take it down no that's not it's just this portion i'm sorry yeah right because the three feet from the sidewalk so okay so right there at that corner if i was to cut it at the sidewalk side down to four feet but that corner is only 12 inches off the sidewalk is that straight side fine so technically i guess two feet of that would need to be knocked down as well technically right okay all righty and just some practical advice josh before you go cutting anything down you may want to talk on the cost because it may be cheaper for you to go out there and dig have post dug in the fence just moved back than it would be for you to essentially take all that linear feet of wood and make it useless it's like kind of four feet this is my think, you know, like I said, yeah. That's just my, that's what I would look at first would be the ability to move it. You would work with Autumn on the time period for the removal. Her and... I don't think it's an inspection. Autumn and Tracy will work with you on the timing for either moving it back or shorting it down. but it will not have to be this weekend but they'll work with you to give you a reasonable time to fix the situation. Mr. Chair this was referred to as from building inspection so likely Mr. Markham would be working more directly with the building inspector on the timeline. All right any more questions? I mean we've kind of worked acting as if we're going to deny this application but I guess we typically need a motion one way or the other so I will now open it to the board for a motion. Mr. Chair I recommend disapproval of PLN BOA 20-26 of Joshua Cameron Markham request for a variance to increase the allowable height of offense that is within three feet of the public right of way in a side street yard from four feet to six feet in a single family residential zone a property located at 1990 Mark Avenue relative to the recommendation of the staff. Thank you Mr. Clark do I have a second? Mr. Needham has raised his hand for a second. Any discussion on the motion? I'm hearing none that I will bring it to a vote please raise your hand if you are in favor of denying the application? That is unanimous. Everyone voted in favor. So, Mr. Markham, at this point, you will need to deal with a building inspection on a timeline for getting it remedied. But like I said, I would seriously look at the possibility of moving it back. It sounds like a six-foot fence is what you want. And I think the cost savings of moving it now versus sawing down the current fence and then building it later but that's a decision for you to make so good luck sir and we will now demote you from the panel okay okay so um on board items number one so everyone realizes i think we mentioned that it was jan's last meeting at our hearing last month did we i know in the past when people have left they haven't they have been given like a plaque or something, and I'm assuming Planning SAP is handling. Yes, we've ordered the gift for Jan, and then we've prepared a resolution that we just need everyone to sign. So if you haven't been asked to sign it yet, we will be, Donna will be coordinating that. Okay. And then we'll want to present that to her, so it'll be up to the board if we want to wait until we're back in an in-person meeting setting, or if we want to do it via Zoom. So Jan was actually appointed to the Planning Commission. Oh, good for her. Yeah, I was wondering who was going to take over. Did she keep Mike Owens' spot? Well, they're not really... I understand, but yeah, but kind of, yeah, I knew there were a couple roll-offs. Two people had hit their term limits. Okay. So one, we were actually were appointed, two individuals were appointed. Zach Davis, who's currently on the Rural Land Management Board and Parris Pike Corps of Commission, and then Jan Myers. Well, I gotta be honest with you, somehow our group keeps getting suckered into going to the Planning Commission. It's a wonderful experience that you've had. Joan actually tips the opposite route. Well good, so what I think we should do is just check on Jan's comfort for when things calm down whether she would be comfortable because i think i would like for us to go get a group photo with her um and so i would like to have it that that way um so donna may be reaching out to get us to sign i'll sign the resolution um honoring uh miss meyer and the good thing is is that i will be able to see her uh on a regular basis in front of the planning commission so that's good so that i wanted to address that the second item is um uh we need to replace Jan as the BOA member on the Landscape Review Committee. So who would like to be on the Landscape Review Committee? I believe that committee only meets upon request. Is that correct? Yes, as needed. And it's usually about two weeks prior to the board meeting. Okay. So, any volunteers for the Landscape Review Committee? Mr. Clark? Were you raising your hand? Did I catch it right before you raised it? I did not raise my hand. Would you like me to give you a little spiel about the Landscape Review Committee? That'd be a good idea. We've established that they do meet as needed. So they only meet whenever the board is going to hear a landscape variance. So a variance related to article 18, which is the landscape provisions of the zoning ordinance related to buffering primarily, or if a variance related to that article comes in to the planning commission during a zone change process, they would also review that. So that's last month. they met to review a variance that was part of a map amendment. Typically they only meet a few times a year. It's fairly infrequent. You all know that we don't see landscape variances all that often. The meetings are at 9 30 on Tuesday mornings when they do happen. And of course currently they're happening over Zoom, but typically they happen in the library and on the seventh floor and planning. They're represented by a BOA member, a nurseryman, a member of the tree board and I think two other folks. I'm a representative from environmental services and I'm drawing a blank right now on what the other category is but but we do need a board member to step up to fill that BOA role. I can do it. All right so I will move for Mr. Clark to be our representative wait oh can i not make a motion fine she's trying to make me give away my gavel to make a motion i will take a motion i was trying to move things along but tracy wants me to follow the rules um on this particular issue so i will entertain a motion um from somebody to move to appoint mr clark as the voa's member on the landscape review committee I move thank you Mr. Glover so moved by Mr. Glover do I have a second Chad has seconded for me any discussion hearing none I will call a vote please raise your right hand if you are in favor Mr. Clark there we go reluctantly thank you Harry we appreciate it And if it becomes, you know, I know you've got a lot going on in your life, so if it gets too much, we can always readdress and see if somebody else would like to take over for you. Then, so do we have any staff members to have anything to announce? Do we have any idea of when we may go back to life, or is it still completely up in the air depending on circumstances on the ground? the council was considering it when they came back from their break in august but i haven't heard any new updates on whether they're ready to do it or not especially with you know lexington's covid counts going up that's right um they may they may go wrong so we'll wait till the council goes back and tries it out and then we'll okay try it after they do so my guess is what zoom next month. Yes. Okay so we'll definitely have another Zoom in August and then at that point we'll address whether or not September and we'll kind of do it on a case-by-case month. I mean not case-by-case. We'll do it on a monthly basis so you'll have plenty of notice because you don't get confused you sit at your computer waiting for the log in when we're all down at the chambers. So we'll make sure you all get here. Our next meeting is scheduled for August 10th at 2020 at 1 30 p.m. like I said we were planning on doing that by zoom next week is there anything from any board members want to present anything or bring anything to our attention Mr. Glover Brandon you mentioned a brick wall on I think it was on Shanae that we disapproved when it was built and I drive by there occasionally and that brick built that brick wall is still up it's a six foot brick wall it's about a foot or so from the sidewalk and we disapproved that a year or two ago and it's still there so I don't know who has to contact building inspection or whatever but I just I keep noticing that's there and and somebody one of the neighbors have mentioned it to me I've got friends in that neighborhood it's a it's a very active neighborhood but there have been as many as 12 houses that are under construction or reconstruction, and I'm pretty familiar with it. But that six-foot or eight-foot wall, I can't remember how tall it was, it remains in noncompliance. And I don't know who... Well, of course, I see Jones here, so... Yeah, and she just informed me that it is in litigation. Okay. So they filed an appeal? They filed an appeal? Did they file an appeal? Yes. Okay. I figured they would, knowing the applicant's counsel. Yes. Well, he was one of the ones that talked to me afterwards, so fair enough. And then, Chad Walker, since you're new before we go, why don't you give us a little spiel about yourself, a little self-promotion? I don't know. I don't ever speak up at these things. I'm afraid I'm going to get nominated like Mr. Clark down there, so I keep my mouth shut, man. hiding the corner. Good idea. I'm glad to be on the board with you guys. I'm on the vacant property review commission and there's a lady that sits in there with me normally that kicks me when I say something wrong and unfortunately since we're on zoom meeting I don't have anybody to kick me so I can't wait to get back and actually meet you guys in person so I got somebody to kick me under the table. Well let me ask you this two things. Number one is I can get one of those dog collars for you. I can use it through my app. It'll take care of the zapping. It leaves less bruising than a kick, but it gets the same effect done. But what's your industry, what's your background a little bit? Because I will say I'm an attorney. I do a lot of real estate, represent people with zoning issues. Mr. Glover is retired now but he was a long prominent litigator and was general counsel for our Kentucky Bar Association Mr. Needham is a builder Mr. Clark was a city council member Ms. Carter is a real estate broker and her husband is a builder and Ms. Whitman is retired but she is a long time broker and community member and so let the public know a little about you on LGTV. Oh, you bet. I'm kind of in the same boat with Mr. Needham. I fix up old properties and rent them out. We've been doing that for about 30 years. My family, I was born in Lexington and live within about three miles of where I was born. So I've got really deep roots here and I'm mostly familiar with the process which y'all go through, but usually I'm on the other side of it. So I kind of, I hope I'm going to be on the glad side with you guys, but I know it's kind of tough sometimes as well. So it ought to be fun. Okay. Yeah. It should be fun. It's a good group. And we're looking forward to meeting you in person. All right. Thanks y'all. I appreciate it. Yeah. Welcome aboard, Chad. Thank you. You can see Chad next to me. You know, I'm like, I'll kick them. I'm a big boy. I can take a lot of kicks. I got a lot of practice in home. A lot of practice. That was good. Well, yeah, you don't want to be on currently. And it's just coincidental. I'm in the middle and all the women were on my right side and all the men were on the left side and usually I was trying to get the men to pay attention so I could move on and the women were trying to boss me around telling me what to do I think it works out perfect that's good okay well with all that being said I'll see you guys next month stay safe, be careful please wear your mask when you're out in public to keep down the cases if we can. And I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you. Thanks, y'all.