# Board of Adjustment - August 10, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 10, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5181 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5181?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-08-10 - **Last revised**: August 10, 2020 - **Length**: 25,165 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 August 10, 2020, at 1:30 PM via video teleconference, with Thomas Glover presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items consisting of variance and conditional use appeals from various applicants seeking zoning relief or special permissions for their properties. During the session, the board took seven motions and votes while hearing five public comments from community members regarding the proposed appeals. The meeting resulted in six approvals and one denial among the cases presented. The board approved variance and conditional use appeals for James T. Mastin, Ideal Exchange Pawn, Theresa Nowak, Kids Unlimited Learning Center, BFB Holdings LLC, and L. Roberts Properties. However, the variance appeal submitted by Beby Jayaram was denied by the board. The virtual format allowed the board to continue conducting essential zoning business while maintaining public health protocols during the ongoing pandemic, ensuring that property owners could still seek necessary zoning relief and conditional use permissions for their development projects. ## Attendance The following members were present at the August 10, 2020 meeting: • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman • Harry Clarke • Raquel Carter • Chad Needham • Chad Walker **Absent:** • Branden Gross No members arrived late to the meeting. Six of seven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered seven applications during the August 10, 2020 meeting, approving six and denying one. **PLN-BOA-20-00035** [timestamp: 02:30]: The board unanimously approved a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for James T. Mastin. Raquel Carter made the motion, seconded by Chad Needham. All six members voted in favor: Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, and Chad Walker. The approval requires construction to follow submitted materials and obtaining necessary permits from Building Inspection. **PLN-BOA-20-00030** [timestamp: 03:30]: A conditional use permit to establish a pawnshop for Ideal Exchange Pawn passed unanimously (6-0). Harry Clarke motioned, Chad Needham seconded. The approval includes conditions limiting outdoor display to 650 square feet and requiring permits from Planning and Building Inspection divisions. **PLN-BOA-20-00034** [timestamp: 04:30]: Theresa Nowak's conditional use application for a home-based counseling business received unanimous approval. Harry Clarke made the motion, Joan Whitman seconded. The permit requires a Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. **PLN-BOA-20-00031** [timestamp: 05:30]: The only denied application was Beby Jayaram's variance request to increase allowable fence height. Raquel Carter motioned for approval, Chad Needham seconded, but all six members voted against the variance (0-6). **PLN-BOA-20-00033** [timestamp: 06:30]: Kids Unlimited Learning Center's conditional use for a rehabilitation home passed unanimously. The approval limits residents to 42 maximum and requires extensive conditions including privacy fencing, parking requirements, and permits from multiple agencies. **PLN-BOA-20-00036** [timestamp: 07:30]: BFB Holdings, LLC's cocktail lounge with live entertainment application passed 5-1. Raquel Carter motioned, Harry Clarke seconded. Chad Walker cast the sole dissenting vote, while Glover, Whitman, Clarke, Carter, and Needham voted in favor. **PLN-BOA-20-00037** [timestamp: 08:30]: L. Roberts Properties' vehicle storage yard conditional use passed unanimously. Harry Clarke motioned, Joan Whitman seconded. The approval includes requirements for paved parking, landscaping, and stormwater management. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, with all comments opposing various conditional use applications under consideration. **Kids Unlimited Learning Center Opposition** Jennifer Reynolds, 11th District Council Member, spoke against the rehabilitation home proposal [timestamp: 06:00]. Reynolds expressed strong opposition, citing concerns about the facility's proximity to residential areas and the concentration of similar facilities already present in the neighborhood. Patrick Salvadori followed with additional opposition to the same rehabilitation home [timestamp: 06:15]. Salvadori raised concerns about potential noise issues and the facility's proximity to his property, requesting that the board consider the impact on nearby residents when making their decision. **BFB Holdings, LLC Cocktail Lounge Opposition** Carolyn Gago, President of South Hill Station, spoke against the conditional use application for a cocktail lounge [timestamp: 07:45]. Gago cited multiple concerns including noise, increased traffic, and potential negative impacts on property values in the area. Robert Ryan, representing the Centre Court Condominium Association as their attorney, also opposed the cocktail lounge proposal [timestamp: 08:00]. Ryan's objections focused on noise concerns, the proposed hours of operation, and the overall impact the establishment would have on area residents. **L. Roberts Properties Vehicle Storage Opposition** Gary Scott Hamilton addressed the board regarding the proposed vehicle storage yard by L. Roberts Properties [timestamp: 09:00]. Hamilton expressed concerns about noise and lighting from the facility, specifically requesting that conditions be imposed to mitigate potential impacts on nearby residential properties. All public comments focused on conditional use applications, with speakers consistently raising concerns about noise, proximity to residential areas, and impacts on neighborhood character and property values. ## Contested Items Two conditional use permit applications faced significant community opposition during the August 10, 2020 meeting. **BFB Holdings, LLC Conditional Use Permit** The conditional use application for BFB Holdings, LLC encountered substantial resistance from nearby residents and property owners. Community members voiced concerns primarily focused on potential noise impacts and the broader effects the proposed use would have on their neighborhood. The opposition reflected residents' worries about how the facility would alter the character and livability of their area. **Kids Unlimited Learning Center Conditional Use Permit** The conditional use permit request for Kids Unlimited Learning Center also drew considerable opposition from the community. Local residents raised concerns about what they perceived as an overconcentration of rehabilitation facilities in their area. The opposition extended beyond just residents, with council members also expressing reservations about the cumulative impact of multiple similar facilities being located in close proximity to one another. Community members and council representatives questioned whether clustering rehabilitation services in one geographic area was appropriate for the neighborhood and whether it would create unintended consequences for residents and the broader community. The concerns centered on the potential effects of having multiple rehabilitation facilities operating within the same vicinity rather than distributing such services more broadly throughout the municipality. Both applications highlighted tensions between community development needs and neighborhood preservation concerns, with residents actively participating in the public process to voice their opposition to the proposed conditional uses. ## Variance Appeal for James T. Mastin [timestamp: 02:30] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a variance request submitted by James T. Mastin to reduce the required side yard setback for a proposed addition to his property. Mastin presented his request to the board, seeking approval to construct an addition that would not meet the standard side yard setback requirements. The specific details of the requested setback reduction and the nature of the proposed addition were discussed during the presentation. Staff had reviewed the variance application and provided recommendations to the board regarding Mastin's request. The staff analysis included an evaluation of the proposed construction plans and their compliance with local zoning regulations. The board deliberated on the variance request, considering both the applicant's needs and the applicable zoning standards. The discussion included review of any conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process. Following their review of the application materials, staff recommendations, and Mastin's presentation, the board voted to approve the variance request. The approval was granted with specific conditions that must be satisfied during the construction process. The approved variance allows Mastin to proceed with his planned addition while maintaining compliance with the modified setback requirements established by the board's decision. ## Conditional Use Appeal for Ideal Exchange Pawn [timestamp: 03:30] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a conditional use appeal for Ideal Exchange Pawn to establish a pawnshop operation. Richard Coppersmith served as the key speaker presenting information on this request. The application sought approval for Ideal Exchange Pawn to operate a pawnshop under the conditional use permit process. Staff had reviewed the proposal and provided recommendations for the board's consideration, including specific conditions that would need to be met for the operation. Following the presentation and discussion of the staff recommendations, the board voted to approve the conditional use request for Ideal Exchange Pawn. The approval was granted based on the staff's analysis and the conditions outlined in their report. The decision allows Ideal Exchange Pawn to move forward with establishing their pawnshop operation, subject to compliance with the conditions specified in the approval. ## Conditional Use Appeal for Theresa Nowak [timestamp: 04:30] The board considered agenda item III.D.3, a conditional use appeal submitted by Theresa Nowak for a home-based counseling business. Nowak appeared before the board to present her request for the conditional use permit. The application sought approval to operate a counseling practice from her residence. Staff had reviewed the proposal and provided recommendations along with specific conditions for the permit approval. Theresa Nowak served as the key speaker for this item, presenting her case to the board members. The discussion focused on the nature of the proposed home-based business and how it would comply with local zoning requirements and conditional use standards. Following the presentation and board discussion, the members voted to approve Nowak's conditional use request. The approval was granted based on staff recommendations and included specific conditions that must be met for the permit to remain valid. The board's decision allows Nowak to proceed with establishing her home-based counseling business, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the staff report and any additional requirements specified during the approval process. ## Variance Appeal for Beby Jayaram [timestamp: 05:30] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a variance appeal submitted by Beby Jayaram requesting permission to increase the allowable height of a fence on their property. Beby Jayaram presented the variance request to the board, seeking approval to exceed the standard fence height regulations. The specific details of the requested height increase and the property location were discussed during the presentation. Staff had previously reviewed the variance application and provided recommendations to the board regarding the request. The staff recommendations were presented as part of the board's consideration of the appeal. Following the presentation and discussion of the variance request, the board voted to deny Beby Jayaram's appeal. The denial was based on the staff recommendations that had been provided to the board for their review and consideration. The board's decision means that Beby Jayaram will not be permitted to construct a fence exceeding the standard height allowances as specified in the applicable regulations. The property owner will need to comply with existing fence height requirements or explore alternative solutions that conform to current zoning standards. ## Conditional Use Appeal for Kids Unlimited Learning Center [timestamp: 06:30] The board considered agenda item III.D.2, a conditional use appeal for Kids Unlimited Learning Center requesting approval for a rehabilitation home facility. Chiquita Hall served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the request to the board members. The application sought conditional use approval to operate a rehabilitation home under the Kids Unlimited Learning Center organization. Staff had reviewed the proposal and provided recommendations to the board regarding the conditional use request. The staff analysis included specific conditions that would need to be met for the facility to operate in compliance with local zoning requirements and regulations. The board deliberated on the merits of the application, considering both the staff recommendations and the proposed conditions for approval. The discussion focused on ensuring the rehabilitation home would meet all necessary operational and safety standards while serving the community's needs. Following their review and discussion of the conditional use request, the board voted to approve the application for Kids Unlimited Learning Center. The approval was granted based on the staff recommendations and included the conditions outlined in the staff report to ensure proper operation of the rehabilitation home facility. The conditional use approval allows Kids Unlimited Learning Center to move forward with establishing their rehabilitation home, subject to meeting all specified conditions and ongoing compliance with local regulations. ## Conditional Use Appeal for BFB Holdings, LLC [timestamp: 07:30] The board considered agenda item III.D.4, a conditional use appeal submitted by BFB Holdings, LLC. The company requested approval to establish a cocktail lounge with live entertainment at their proposed location. Zach Cato served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The presentation covered the specifics of BFB Holdings' proposal for the cocktail lounge operation, including their plans for live entertainment programming. During the deliberation process, the board examined various aspects of the conditional use request. The discussion focused on operational parameters that would need to be established to ensure the business would operate appropriately within the community context. The board ultimately approved BFB Holdings, LLC's conditional use request. However, the approval came with specific conditions attached to address operational concerns. The board imposed restrictions on music levels and established limits on the hours of operation for the cocktail lounge. These conditions were designed to balance the business needs of BFB Holdings with community standards and neighboring property considerations. The music conditions likely address noise concerns, while the operational hour restrictions ensure the establishment operates within appropriate timeframes for the area. The conditional approval allows BFB Holdings to move forward with their cocktail lounge and live entertainment venue, provided they comply with the board-imposed conditions regarding music volume and operating hours. ## Conditional Use Appeal for L. Roberts Properties [timestamp: 08:30] The board considered agenda item III.D.5, a conditional use appeal submitted by L. Roberts Properties for a vehicle storage yard. Kevin Flanagan served as the key speaker presenting information on this matter. L. Roberts Properties had requested conditional use approval to operate a vehicle storage yard on their property. The proposal underwent staff review, which resulted in specific recommendations and conditions for the project's approval. During the discussion, the board reviewed the staff recommendations and associated conditions that would govern the vehicle storage yard operation. The conditions were designed to ensure the facility would operate in compliance with local zoning requirements and minimize any potential impacts on surrounding properties. Following consideration of the staff report and recommendations, the board voted to approve the conditional use request for L. Roberts Properties. The approval was granted based on the staff's professional assessment and the proposed conditions that would regulate the vehicle storage yard's operations. The decision allows L. Roberts Properties to proceed with establishing the vehicle storage yard, subject to compliance with all specified conditions and ongoing adherence to applicable zoning regulations. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-20-00035** — passed (6-0): Variance to reduce the required side yard setback for James T. Mastin - **PLN-BOA-20-00030** — passed (6-0): Conditional use to establish a pawnshop for Ideal Exchange Pawn - **PLN-BOA-20-00034** — passed (6-0): Conditional use for a home-based business (counseling) for Theresa Nowak - **PLN-BOA-20-00031** — failed (0-6): Variance to increase the allowable height of a fence for Beby Jayaram - **PLN-BOA-20-00033** — passed (6-0): Conditional use for a rehabilitation home for Kids Unlimited Learning Center - **PLN-BOA-20-00036** — passed (5-1): Conditional use to establish a cocktail lounge with live entertainment for BFB Holdings, LLC - **PLN-BOA-20-00037** — passed (6-0): Conditional use for a vehicle storage yard for L. Roberts Properties --- ## Full transcript I poured it on and I poured it out I tried to show you just how much I cared I'm tired of words and I'm too hoarse to shout But you've been cold, torn me so long I'm crying icicles instead of tears And all I can do is keep on telling you I want you, I need you But there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you Now don't be sad, don't be sad Cause two out of three, baby Now don't be sad Cause two out of three ain't there You'll never find your goal on a sandy beach You'll never drill for oil on a city street I know you're looking for a ruby in a mountain of rocks But there ain't no coup de ville Hiding at the bottom of a cracker jack box I can't lie I can't tell you that I'm something I'm not No matter how I try, I'll never be able to give you something, something that I just haven't got. Well, there's only one girl that I will ever love And that was so many years ago And oh, I know I'll never get her out of my heart Thank you. and then the applicant will be allowed. And then the applicant will be allowed. Weird. Because I know I did that before. Because I heard him on there before. Again, apologies for the technical troubles. After the applicant speaks for each case, then the chair will ask if there are any citizens who would like to speak in opposition or in favor. And at that time, if you would like to speak, we'll ask that you raise your hand electronically. We will see you in the attendee list and we'll allow you to speak once we call on you. At this time, we also have three phone callers that we need to identify, if that's okay, Mr. Glover. That'd be fine. Okay. With the caller on number 1-859-457-6872, I'm going to allow you to speak now. if you could give us your name and let us know what application you're in. You actually unneeded the number ending in 5872, but you unneeded in 1550. Yeah, was that not what I said? Oh, okay. The person who is on 1859-317-1915, could you please give us your name and which application you're here for, please? Okay. It looks like that caller might not be able to communicate with us at the moment, so we will move them out. For number 1-859-457-6872, we'll allow you to speak now. If you could please tell us your name and what case you're here for. Josh Desarn with Division of Engineering. Okay. Thank you very much. Just here in case you need me. Okay. And now for number 1859-797-1779, we'll allow you to speak. If you can give us your name, in which case you're here for, please. Lee Roberts with L. Roberts Properties, property on 7th Street, unconditional use permit. Okay, thank you very much. And it looks like we have another number, 1859-512. 9359. We'll allow you to speak now if you can give us your name and let us know which case you're here for, please. Okay. Not hearing anyone from that number at this point. Let us try one more time for number 1-859-317-1915. If you could give us your name and which application you're here for. My name is Jerry Scott Hamilton, and I didn't hear your whole statement there. What's your next thing you want? We just needed to know which case you were here for, sir. 7th Street. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Baker Scrap property. Thank you very much. We'll be asking for citizen comment on that case a little bit later in the agenda. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, I do not see Mr. Needham back. There he is. He's trying to connect. Looks like he's connecting. So whenever you're ready to proceed. Okay, I want to see his face before we get too far. Make sure it's him. If you could enable your video from down to the bottom of your page. Thank you. I like something. I do notice right now, sir, that we have three hands raised for either citizens or applicants. I just feel like we need to let these individuals know that when the application you're interested in comes up, we will ask you then if you'd like to speak to that. So it's not necessary to have your hand raised at this time. Can you hear me? We can hear you. We can't see you. huh I don't know what happened I got kicked off but I'm on my personal hot spot so that seems to be working on my phone so give me a second here I'm not sure why it doesn't give me the start video bottom of your screen on the left there should be both audio and and video controls if you go to stop video and open that arrow if you can see it it'll it'll allow you to get Mr. Needham do you have a video option now? Yes I see everyone it just it does it doesn't give me a start video I just it's xed out for some reason. Okay we're sending you a request to start your video okay I see I see that yeah I see that let me see here we go all right now we see it sorry it looks much better now fix my hair a little bit there we go okay what I'm going to do is to the first thing on the agenda is the approval of the minutes after After we approve the minutes, I will go through and sound the agenda for, and I'll call each case to make sure the applicants are here and to determine whether or not there's anyone either in support or in opposition of that. We'll make a note of that, and if there is no opposition to a particular application, that goes on the rocket docket, the FAST agenda, and we will take care of you promptly. if there is opposition, you'll be on the second stage of our agenda, and we will take you in order as that case is called. So the first thing on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for July. Members of the board, if you've read those, if you have any additions or corrections or changes that you want to propose, please let us know now. I don't see anybody want to do that. So I'll- Chair, I recommend approval of the notice of June the 8th. I second the motion. Okay. We have a motion of second, but that was for June the 8th. What about July? Mary, you're not fine, but that's okay. Sorry, we did have an error on the earliest agenda sent out and it said June, but the July 10th minutes are the ones we need to prove today. My motion is for the July minutes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clark and Ms. Whitman. I have my second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. Thank you very much. Motion carries. And it's approved. Okay, now I'm going to go through the agenda and to make sure that applicants are present. The first case on the agenda, the first application is PLNBOA 20-31 Bibi Yarram. Is Bibi Yarram present? And you can raise your hand. Yes, Mr. Yarram is present. Is present and you can elevate her to see. if you can speak to us. Ms. Yarrowam, are you here? Mr. Yarrowam. It looks like we have a panel square for you, so we're going to assume that you are. Is there anybody in opposition to this application, 20-31? Anybody in the, any citizen or any member of the public in opposition to this application? I see none. The next case on the agenda is BLN VOA 20-35, James T. Mastin. Is Mr. Mastin present? Mr. Mastin is present. Okay, thank you Mr. Mastin. Is there any member of the public or any citizen who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Mr. Glover, it looks like Council Member Jennifer Reynolds has raised her hand. Would you like to allow her to speak so that we can see which case she's interested in? Sure, that's fine. Reynolds? okay council member reynolds uh we just need to see which application you're interested in please go ahead can you hear me we can i'm sorry i raised my hand for the wrong one i apologize it's for application 200033 okay thank you i'll call that in just just a moment Anybody in opposition to 20-35 James T. Mastin? I don't see any hands raised. Thank you. You'll be on the rocket docket. The next application is a conditional use appeal, DLNBOA 20-30 Ideal Exchange Pawn. Is the applicant present and with us? Yes, sir. Mr. Rich Coffersmith is present. Okay, Mr. Copper-Smith, you see your hand raised. Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the audience who is in opposition to 20-30 Ideal Exchange Pong? Do not see any hands. Do not see anybody, so that goes on the speedy docket as well. Thank you very much. The next case is DLNBOA 20-33 Kids Unlimited Learning Center. Is the applicant present and with us today? Ms. Chiquita Hall has raised her hand. Okay. And is anybody in opposition to application number 20-33? Looks like Ms. Reynolds and Mr. Salvador. Yes, Mr. Salvador. Okay. Mr. Chair, you also received several letters regarding this case. Okay. Thank you very much, Alan. Thank you. Okay, the next case is, let's see, the next case is PLN BOA 20-34, Teresa Nowak. Hi, Terry Nowak is online, sir. Online, raise your hand. Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak in opposition to this application? I see no hands raised. Mr. Chair, for this one, you received one letter of opposition and one letter of support. Okay. So we will take a look at those letters. Thank you very much. The next case is PLN VOA 20-36, BFB Holdings, LLC. Is the applicant present? Yes, looks like Zach Cato is present, sir. Okay. Mr. Cato, is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Yes, sir. It looks like we do have at least two hands raised in opposition on this one. All right. Thank you very much. We did receive two letters of opposition for that one. All right. And the last case on our docket is BLNBOA 20-37 L. Roberts Properties. Is the applicant present? Yes. Okay, the applicant is present. Is there anyone in opposition to this application? Sir, Mr. Gary Scott Hamilton. That's indicated that he is in opposition. Okay. All right. You received two letters of opposition for this case. How are we going to see these letters? They were made available to you on the Google Drive. The link was sent out to you this morning. And then the, for March Lane, for Teresa Nowak's case, the one letter in support was emailed to you right before the meeting. It was a late addition. The others were all available on the Google Drive. Fair enough. Okay, the first case on the quick docket is VBRM. Mr. Yarram, are you present? Mr. Chair, that case was recommended for disapproval by staff, so typically that would not be heard until... That's right. That's going to be at the end of the docket, so Mr. Yarram, we will... demote you and put you on the first case with opposition. Let's see, the next case, we have opposition for Baston. No, no. We did not. All right, the next case on the docket is PLN BOA 20-35, James T. Baston. Mr. Baston, you're present? Mr. Baston is present. He is present. We need to elevate him or promote him. Mr. Mastin has been promoted. Mr. Mastin, if you can unmute yourself and share your video. There you go, Mr. Mastin. Okay. Tell us about this application. Hello, I am planning a renovation and remodel on my house at 467 Johnson Avenue in Lexington. And the proposed addition entails building a wall that is contiguous with the existing wall of the main body of the house and that is only three feet two inches from the property line whereas I believe the code does require that the any additions be at least five feet from the property line my proposal is to allow the building of a new addition at the rear of my property at the three foot two inch distance from the property line in order to allow for the addition to be flush and contiguous with the existing house. It looks to me like from the drawing that was submitted that the new addition is on the same line, on the same, I guess that's the southwest line of your property as the existing residence. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. Any members of the board have any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN VOA 20-35 James T. Madison's request for variance to reduce the required side yard setback of five and a half feet to three feet two inches in order to construct an addition within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on the property located at 467 johnson avenue subject to the staff's recommendations and conditions listed below thank you mr carter do we have a second second i'll second mr clark mr chair you may ask the applicant if he has read through the conditions and agrees to those uh i you know i i consider that question to be really unnecessary because if they accept the application they they have agreed to the conditions mr mass and i one thing i didn't do was to swear you in so would you raise your right hand And do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And do you swear that the testimony you've already given was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you very much. And I may have to be reminded of that from time to time because it's all new procedure. Do we have a second for that motion? Do we have a second for Mr. Sarge? Mr. Needham seconds. All those in favor of approval of PLNBOA 20-35, raise their hand. Motion carries. Mr. Mastin, good luck with your project. You've been approved. Thank you. As we are taking our time to get our votes in, if you'll just give us a few seconds. Sure. It looked like it was unanimous to me. Yes, sir. It was unanimous. We just need to give our staff who are in the council chamber a moment to record that for the P-electronics. I think that's right. and I saw Ms. Whitman, Ms. Carter, Mr. Clark, Mr. Needham, and Mr. Walker raise their hands and I did as well. How will we know when the time has passed? They should be fine. We just need a minute to lock in that vote. Okay, the next application is Ideal Exchange Pond PLNBOA 20-30. And is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Rich Coppersmith is present for that. Okay, Mr. Coppersmith. I'll promote him now. Mr. Coppersmith, if you would like to show your video and unmute your audio, please. You're unmuted. I need your video. There you go. We can see you and looks like you're unmuted. Mr. Kompersmith? Yes. Glad to have you here. Would you please raise your right hand and do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you very much. Tell us about this application. We are getting ready to move our current location to the Winchester Road location for a pawn shop. Okay. In this application, I don't think we had any opposition to this. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Coppersmith? Mr. Coppersmith, this is Mr. Clark. And I noticed that a lot of the information seems to include items that would be displayed outside. And I was just wondering if the idea of four parking spaces is enough for that kind of display. Could you address that quickly, please, sir? There are actually 12 parking spaces available there. i understand that but the the uh the staff has indicated that there would be a space that's equal to four parking spaces for display and so i was i was simply wondering about that that's actually more than what will be used okay that was my question and i appreciate that thank you sir okay thank you mr clark any other uh questions from the board i had a question yeah the cover smith where are you moving from uh it's uh 510 east new circle road right next to national work where okay all right so i got it all right thank you are you moving to a larger space yes okay any other questions from the board seeing none i'll entertain a motion mr chair i recommend approval plnboa 20-30 ideal exchange pawn requesting the conditional use to establish a pawn shop in a highway service business b3 zone on property located at 1123 winchester road based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? Mr. Needham seconds. Thank you, Mr. Needham. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It looks like it is unanimous. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Application is approved. good luck with your project Mr. Copper Smith. Thank you. According to my according to my notes everything else had some opposition to it. Is that what you all have been reporting as well? I believe PLN BOA 20-34 did have one letter of opposition but i don't believe there was anyone in the audience to speak on that matter i think typically that would be heard on the uncontested docket just with a little bit of time to review that letter okay nobody's home who can't answer the phone call right now all right uh then i'll the next case i'll call is uh plnvoa 20-34 theresa nowak not sure i'm pronouncing that correctly is Ms. Nowak present? Our hand is raised. Ms. Nowak, we will go ahead and promote you to panelists now. If you could show your video and unmute your audio, please. There she is. Thank you, Ms. Nowak. Tell us about this application for home-based business. I'm sorry. Before you speak, they're going to have to remind me every other time thank you you swear to our firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth i do thank you very much now tell us about the project all right i recently purchased this house a few months ago um i had opened a business um it's a side business because i work full-time at eastern kentucky university and this is a side business doing counseling with children and youth um but with the pandemic what I ended up with with an office was a very fancy storage unit, expensive storage unit. So I shut down that lease when that this past summer. And what I'd like to do is be able to do that out of my home. What kind of counseling are you going to be providing? My focus is play therapy predominantly. What kind of therapy? play therapy play therapy play therapy i work with kids and so it's very difficult to do talk therapy to for them to explain how they're feeling so it's done through through a play where they're able to better express what's going on with them again it's part-time because i work full-time at eku i'm a professor there and this is to be able to work. At this point, nothing is face-to-face, but the idea is hopefully COVID-19 will go away or we'll find a way to fix that, and I'd be able to see kiddos face-to-face at some point, and I'd like to be able to do that here. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Nowak. Any questions from the members of the board. Carrie, you need to unmute yourself if you're talking. Good, thank you. Mr. Novak, this is probably irrelevant to the application, but I'm interested. This is Mr. Clark, and I would just be interested to know what you teach at EKU and how it relates to your business here. Absolutely. I teach psychology at EKU. My training has been in school psychology and working with children and youth predominantly. I've done that for many years, even before I got to EKU. I worked with children in the school system, and then that's what I teach at EKU. That's very interesting. I appreciate that. Thanks very much. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any other questions from the members of the board? I don't see any hands raised or no questions, so I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 20-34. Teresa Nowak requesting a conditional use for a home-based business counseling in a single family residence zone on property located at 233 Larch Lane based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman seconds the motion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It looks like it's unanimous to me. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Nowak. The motion carries. The project is approved. Good luck with your new business. Thank you. I very much appreciate it. I have a question. Since there was someone that objected to it, I don't, of course, need to know that. But whatever the concern is, I'd like to make sure that it would be addressed so that there wouldn't be a problem. Is there any way of being able to find out some of the content of what the concern was? I can share that letter with you, yes. I'm sorry, what was that, Connor? I can share that with you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't want my neighbors upset with me. No, and we kind of covered that in the questions that I asked and that were asked of you in this week. I think we covered their concerns. Okay. Based on the answers that you gave, I doubt that you'll have any opposition. it was just a letter of concern and I think you addressed that in your answers great, okay, thank you all very much thank you I think we are now I think that's all the cases that we had that there was no opposition, to which there was no opposition. Is that correct? Now, can we go back to the number one? This is one that was recommended for disapproval. So this is the first contested case. It is the first one on the docket, BLN BOA 20-31. E.B. Yarra Ram, Mr. Yarra Ram, you are present. We heard from you earlier. We will elevate you, promote you so we can see you and hear you. So if you would enable your audio and your video, we'll be able to see you and speak to you. We see you there. Can you hear us? And can we hear you? You need to enable your audio as well. So unmute yourself. Unfortunately sir, the audio seems to be unheard of. Mr. Yeram, we do see you but we can't hear you. It may be something on your end so if you could unmute yourself. Now at the bottom of the left. Or, there you go, now we can hear you I think. No, we cannot. Try again to unmute yourself. There we go. That looks like it worked. Okay, good, good. Okay, now we can hear you. Okay, we can hear you and see you. So if you would raise your right hand. Yes, sir. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Okay, thank you. And this was a case that was recommended for disapproval by the staff. So we're going to let the staff speak first about the opposition and we'll give you a chance to speak in rebuttal to that. So who's speaking? Autumn, are you? I am and I will share my screen at this time. Okay. All right. So the application before you today is a variance request to increase the allowable height of a fence in a side street side yard from six feet to eight feet in a high density apartment zone at 2201 Story Court. The subject property is located to the southeast of the intersection of Manowar Boulevard and Trent Boulevard on Story Court. You'll see the white arrow pointing here. Get my spotlight tool here. There we go. And to the right side here, you'll see an aerial of the existing townhouse. This is the previously constructed fence that was existing. This fence is being replaced by the requested fence. This was a six-foot tall fence and was significantly further from the sidewalk than the currently proposed fence. Let's see. Through here. here you can see a photo of the fence that is being constructed at eight feet um it looks like the old fence has been moved towards the sidewalk um with the intent of that all being eight feet what happened was that the division of building inspection received a complaint regarding this fence being constructed without a permit um so sometimes what can happen with fences is that if you're simply replacing a fence you don't have to get a permit um i'm not sure if that's what the instance here was why the applicant did not initially secure a permit but they did not file a permit application for this fence and instead relocated the fence and constructed a taller fence than what was originally there so that's kind of how we got to be here today. I'll go ahead and skip forward to a couple more photos so you can see the fence that is being requested. The applicant has indicated that they desire the fence for privacy purposes and they are in an area where they are across the street from apartments and they feel that their privacy is very important and they would like to have the taller fence in order to accommodate that so that they would have limited visibility onto their property. The zoning ordinance does not allow for an eight-foot tall fence along the right-of-way in any residential zone and only in a very few of our commercial zones. There are other means that the applicant could use to achieve privacy. They could have a compliant six-foot fence and plant some some large foliage on the inside of that fence to allow an additional buffer for sound and for privacy purposes. So staff has recommended disapproval of this application. The application has come about because the applicant did not go through the appropriate process of securing a permit. The applicant has not provided us with any circumstances that are unique to this property. The allowable fence at six feet tall would provide a similar level of security and privacy for the applicant and we believe that the eight-foot tall fence would not be appropriate along the right-of-way in any residential zone and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Gowderweiss, you said that on this particular piece of property, because it's residential property, that an eight-foot fence wouldn't be permitted to be built regardless of how far it is back from the right-of-way. Is that correct? That is correct. But if you were to build a six-foot fence, it could be built on this property, but it would have to be some distance from the right away is that correct the six foot fence would be three feet from the sidewalk which the fence that the applicant has currently constructed is three feet from that sidewalk so it could be six feet tall okay did you say that the current the fence that is being built is three feet from the sidewalk yes okay any other questions to miss goddorweiss my understanding is that the only only conflict is the height of the fence is that correct that is correct this is a variance request for the height of the fence any other questions for autumn from the board Okay. Thank you, Autumn. Mr. Yaram, what do you have to say for your application? What's your justification for building an eight-foot fence? Yes, sir. Most of the points I gave in written statements, but some of the points I would like to highlight, those are that late in the night I hear the big noise, people yelling, screaming and whatnot during the midnight and I couldn't go to sleep after because of the hearing because the road is very near to this house. I was scared also because of that midnight or after midnight noise. and from the road people or the street people can see inside the house can see me inside the house and I am retired, I live by myself many times I am scared go to bed, I can't go to sleep and there is across, just across the road apartment building complex. These are all because of all these are a lot of noise. Because of all these reasons I'm also safety also because of safety I'm retired and live by myself many times scared because of all these reasons I prefer to have eight feet fence to have some defense mechanism or privacy. These are all my reasoning, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Does any member of the Board of Adjustment have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Did you all, did the board members understand what Mr. Yarram was saying? It's basically a safety concern because he lives across the street from a noisy apartment complex. and that seems to be the primary thrust of his explanation for the justification for building expense. But you did, Mr. Yararong, you did not get a permit, did you? In fact, I'm sorry, sir. Yes, sir. I didn't know that that is the procedure I have to follow. And contact many people. They advised me you can move that. as madam explained I moved the six feet fence at that time they told me you can move it I contact many friends or somebody else many people they advise me okay you can move it then immediately one day I saw the inspector put the note on my door please call me immediately I called contacted and followed the procedure I didn't know it was my mistake I didn't know how follow the procedure. People told me, okay, you can do that. That's what I did, but it was my mistake. Okay. And when you got the notice on the door, did you call? Yes, sir. Immediately, immediately called the person and emailed it and immediately followed through. Okay. And they explained to you the aid to advance is not permitted? Yes, and he also explained, Jonathan, if you want to go to that one, you have to go apply for the board of, apply to you, through you, and get the permission from you. That's what I did. Yes, this is an application for a variance. Variance, right, sir. Yes, right. Okay. it. Unfortunately, the ordinances don't permit an eight foot fence anywhere in a residential zone, regardless of how far it is in the right of way. But they do permit a six foot fence if it's three feet from the right of way. And as I understand from staff, the fence that your building is three feet, but it can only be six feet tall. It's three feet from the right of way, but it can only be six feet tall. So that's the problem. Any other questions from board members to Mr. Yarra Ram? Okay. So the six feet, so I can have only six feet along the Trent Belavard? Trent Boulevard. I'm sorry, I didn't understand you. So that means I can only have six feet along the Trent Boulevard. Trent Boulevard. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Can I have this eight feet about two, three panels to back out by facing the hill that in the back there, not along the front boulevard. In the portion of your rear yard, may I share my screen? Let me... Yeah, please do that. Let's look at the pictures again. All right. So the rear yard, you are allowed to have an eight foot tall fence in the rear yard. So that would be the portion of the fence that was directly behind the house. So along this rear building line here. So take this back to wherever the fence may be. This portion of the fence can be eight feet tall. Once you get into the side yard, so past the building line, so anything from here on towards Trent, that has to be six feet. But directly behind the rear wall plane of the building you can have an eight foot tall fence. Okay how about this one madam that just you are seeing next to my the the right one the one panel you are seeing the eight feet can I have that one yeah that one can I have that one? No nothing in the side yard can be eight feet only the person that is directly behind your house. Okay. How can I avoid the noise and have the protection because of every reason my safety and also for six feet if you can see from the driveway they can see my living room, my bathroom. If I stay in their bathroom or living room they can see me and lot of noise over the midnight screaming yelling it and i can't go to sleep yeah the uh the ordinances provide only for a six-foot fence in the side yard and that's and that's the problem uh autumn let me ask you a question if you put that picture back up again or that drawing let me ask you something about that in particular Go back to the diagram if you would. Thank you. Sure. Is the ordinance worded so that an eight-foot fence is permitted in the backyard? and what's the you the way he described it was the backyard is everything that is I guess not let me see I don't know how to I should point to it. The ordinance does not allow for an eight-foot fence in the side street side yard so Anything that is to the side of this building line here towards the road is considered the side street side yard. The ordinance only allows for a six-foot tall fence in that area. Directly behind the rear wall plane of the house would be considered the rear yard where an eight-foot tall fence is allowed. How far to the south does that rear yard fence permission allow? Why does it stop at the corner of the house? Because of the very reason only from that corner they can see me, sir. Beyond the three or four panels, they can't see me. That's not my question. I'm trying to get a clarification of what consists of the backyard. The backyard is anything that is directly behind the rear wall plane of the house. Okay. And so there are portions of... If you were to extend that wall plane all the way to, I guess, Trent Boulevard, can there be an eight-foot fence all the way to the property line? No, not without the variance. Anything beyond this corner towards Trent Boulevard is considered to be part of the side street side yard. Okay. So that's where we're taking this line and continuing it back to the rear lot line. Okay, instead of taking the back line of the house and extending it farther to Trent. You see what I'm saying? Right, anything between this line and Trent Boulevard is side street, side yard. Okay, and that has to be no higher than six feet tall. Correct. So, Autumn, if he wants to do eight foot on the fence, he can start it at that back corner and go straight back. and use his whole backyard, it could all be eight feet, as long as he starts on that back corner and goes straight back, correct? Yes. Okay. Mr. Yarim, do you understand what we're just talking about? Yes, sir, I understand. And can I have one question, sir? Since you're allowing one of these six feet, another eight feet, that means two feet, total two feet. Can I have the like a live fence like a wine or some trees or something for the two feet? I don't know how to explain it. So on top of the six feet is a live fence like greeneries. Can I have that one? I think if you plant shrubberies or trees or whatever behind the fence, they can be taller than six feet and so anything that you grow back there a bush or a hedge or trees or whatever we don't regulate the height of growing plants so anything that grows back there can be taller than six feet but the fence itself can only be six feet tall Okay. Okay. Do you understand? Yes, sir. All right. Now, because the staff has recommended disapproval, any other questions by the board to either Mr. Yarra or Ms. Goddard? So hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move for disapproval of PLN VOA 20-31, Baby Jaram's request for a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence in the side street side yard from 6 feet to 8 feet in a high-density apartment zone on property located at 2201-story court based on the That's recommendations. And for the reasons in the staff report. Oh, thank you. Is that a yes, Ms. Carter? Yes, yes. Okay, thank you, Ms. Carter. Do we have a second? Mr. Needham seconds. Thank you, Mr. Needham. All those in favor say aye. Raise your hand. and that looks like it's unanimous and so Mr. Yara, the application has been denied and I suggest that you talk with staff about what you can build, what you're permitted to build and they can give you more precise instructions and advice than we can here on the TV. Is that fair? Thank you, yes sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, the next case. Next case on the docket is PLNBOA 20-33. Is that right? Kids Unlimited Learning Center. and is the applicant present. Yes, we are moving Ms. Chiquita Hall to be a panelist now. And there you go, you have your video showing and your audio. Hello, Chiquita Shields here for 1365 Davenport. on Tracy's House as a residential re-entry center, repurposing it. Ms. Hall, would you raise your right hand? Ms. Hall, would you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Bailey. Tell us about this application. Well, currently I have a property at location that's vacant. It's been vacant since February. I operated a daycare in there for seven, eight years, and it started to lose business and money to the point I couldn't afford to keep it open. So I had two locations, so I moved all the children that wanted to go to that location. And I've been trying to sell the building since February to Norvale. So I'm attempting to repurpose it rather than going foreclosure or let it go. I have attempted to sell it. We've gotten some really low ball interest and offers, but nothing to where I can even walk out, break even and pay for the loan. So I'm attempting to repurpose the facility because it's set up already for a residential home. It's different rooms. It's got six bathrooms. So the utilities are cut up. So it's perfect for what I'm asking to do with it. I won't have to do anything to the property except for add a fence, which I've already done, and repave the parking lot, which is scheduled. They're like 10 weeks out, so I'm waiting on Tate's Creek concrete to do that. I'm adding security. I have software in mind to be able to hold to keep up with the security and the accountability of all the residents to make sure that I do keep the community safe and I do my part and operate the facility according to code regulation and so forth. Anything else? Any other questions? How many people are going to be proposed to have in this rehabilitation home? Well, I'm going on your recommendation of no more than 42. But as I'm reading, there is some things needing like multipurpose rooms and so forth. So I will have to meet those requirements as well. But I know that the max is no more than 42. if the parking lot isn't able once they do that and they can't mark it out for the 16 spaces I realize that too will reduce the number of occupants. Do you plan to have a staff? Yes sir. How big is your staff? Well we're required to have two to four full-time staff members. And it's 24-hour, around-the-clock, supervised, paid staff for both the dorms, the female and the male, at all times. We'll also have social workers on board to do some of the classes or whatever, but those positions will be part-time positions. Do you have to get approval from any other agency besides the Board of Adjustments before you're operating? Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. And what what other entities or agencies do you have to get provision from? Well, I'll have to go to the Department of Human Services to get licenses and so forth. I'll have to go to the Bureau of Prisons, file application with them and do a contract. And then, of course, I'll have to go to all the city, the state, and the local to get all the permits and licenses to occupy it as a rehabilitation center and to be able to operate. it's similar it's like the daycare you have to go through all those licensings and the annual inspections and so forth so i know that i'll have to do all that and get approval before i can open okay and you understand that you have to get those permissions uh those licenses if we even if we approve you here you still have to get those licenses oh yes sir it's like i said the daycare i've been doing that for 20 years i'm aware of all the uh licensing and stuff that you'll have to do. And I'm aware that it has to be set up for inspection and all that before I can actually have any residents there. I'm a little concerned about the difference between what the description of the rehabilitation home is and the name of the place. It's called, do you call it Kids Unlimited Learning Center? Is that going to be the name of the place? No, sir. Kids Unlimited Learning Center owns the property. I see. We're trying to repurpose it for a residential reentry center. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to make that clear. Yes. Previously, it was a child care center and it was named Kids Unlimited. I got you. And you proposed to call this Tracy's House. Is that the proposed name for the place? Yes. Okay, any questions from the board members about this application? Yes, Ms. Holm, this is Mr. Clark. I'm interested to know how you pay for this. Obviously, you have to have income in order to operate. And I'm just wondering where that income is coming from. Well, sir, until we actually get the residence, I've been in business for 20 years. And then I still have businesses operating today. So I have funds in my accounts, and I also generate income currently with my other businesses. So there basically is no income from this operation, so to speak. Not until I get it open. I mean, I have to get approval to operate it before it can generate income. I understand. When it is open, then what's the source of your income? It will be based on the residents. They will pay to reside there. And also, if it's parolees, then the Bureau of Prisons will also pay to have them stay at the residence. Okay, I understand that. Thank you. Mm-hmm. It's in a largely commercial area as it is, right? There's no residential houses on either side or on the rear. Well, there are apartments next door. Across the street, there's a community center being built. And then there's a structure right across the street. I think it's a church or I don't know what it is. I never see people there, but it's a place there. Right behind me, it's a restaurant and clothing stores, different businesses and McDonald's. So it's kind of a variety of things going on on that corner. So it would sit in the area as far as there are the apartments and multi-housing across from there. but it's not like sometimes we have these applicants come applications come before us and it's you know in the middle of a single family housing area and they don't know ma'am there's a lot of homeless there's a lot of homeless people in that area already the property is vacant we have people sleeping on the breezeways we have people sleeping in the back in the bushes. So it is a problem and there is a need for housing for these people. I'm not sure if it's substance abuse. I'm not sure what it is, but I'd rather provide a place for them to be able to come in and stay rather than sleeping outside of the property. That's a concern for me. I don't know about the community, but that's a concern. You know, for the homeless to be taking over the property. Why can't we provide a place for them to come inside? Hey, Ms. Hall, Chad Walker, I got a couple quick ones for you. I'm glad to see you're still using AOL account as I am. It says how old I am. That's right. It says on here the center operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Now, I know that you'll have people inside that are going to be keeping an eye on clients, but are you expecting to accept people seven days a week? Like, are there going to be pickup drop-offs at, let's say, 3, 4 in the morning, people coming and going, or is that just people inside the premises? No, that's just people inside the premises. We're not going to be doing intake and that type of stuff in the middle of the night. Okay. Okay, thanks. Anything else for Ms. Hall? Thank you, Ms. Hall. We do have some people who want to speak in opposition to this. Do we have anybody who wants to speak in support of this application? and members of the public or citizens who want to speak in support. They take these sort of one at a time. Mr. Glover, I see one hand raised right now, but that is Councilman Member Reynolds, and she does indicate that she's in opposition. Okay, Ms. Reynolds, you had your hand raised, but do I understand that you want to speak in opposition? Is that correct? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay, well, we'll hear from you now then. Okay. My name is Jennifer Reynolds. I'm the 11th district council member, which is where this property is located. Before you speak, Ms. Reynolds, we need to enable your video so we can see you. I'm sorry, sir, this is a... Oh, this is a phone call? So this is the attendees side, not the applicant side. We've been advised by law to not share or start the videos for those that are not applicant. So we can't swear these people in? You can swear them in and ask that they raise their hand. Ms. Reynolds, would you raise your right hand? You saw us swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Okay, thank you. Now go ahead. uh and um i i don't like to generally you know speak against uh people that are trying to do business in the district um however i am extremely concerned about uh this use and uh and i think you all got an email from me and maybe from several other people um in the in the district uh it actually is true that this is located next to housing. So there's housing that backs up to the property directly behind the property. And then there's apartment buildings on one side. Then there's a little strip mall on the other. There's a new community center that was just built. It's very big. But after talking to nearby residents and other residents in Cardinal Valley in general, I've come to the conclusion that this is not a good idea. For one, it's too close to the property behind. That's why it would need a conditional use. And two, this is a neighborhood that is already struggling, struggling with substance abuse disorder, struggling with some homelessness, with prostitution. And those are things that, yes, we want to get better. Yes, we want services for, and we have some in the area, but if someone is in a halfway house and trying to recover, whether that be from addiction, to get back on their feet after being in jail, whether that be struggling with a mental health disorder, the best place to be not in an area where they can literally go on the corner and, you know, get any substance. And I have spoken with police that work this area and they said that this is a red flag as well and they do not want something like this in the neighborhood. These types of businesses are needed but putting them here so close to housing and where people could you know be with other folks that are struggling and not getting the help that they need is just not a good idea and so I feel very strongly about this. I have spoken with the neighborhood and I have this opinion because the neighborhood has this opinion. And I overwhelmingly in the neighborhood association, everyone said this is not something that they think is a good idea due to the reasons that I mentioned. So I feel that I need to represent them and and say that strongly. Ms. Reynolds, where would you put this house if you didn't put it in this particular location? Where is the more appropriate place to put it? I'm not sure that I can say specifically of a specific property, but I can tell you that this area, Kernel Valley, already has the Hope Center and other halfway houses, the well, and things in the area. And to have a concentration of these type of facilities in one area is problematic. And so I think they need to be spread out throughout the city. And it does concern me that this is not, you know, a name that we recognize that's been doing this type of work for a long time. And so that could be challenging as well. Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. anybody have any questions for ms reynolds anybody any member of the board can i speak no not not yet ms hall we will uh we will let you rebut all of the people who who speak at the end of everybody's uh comments is there anybody else in the audience I'm sorry, Mr. Dino. You'll have to unmute yourself. Yeah, I had a question for Ms. Reynolds. How many neighborhood associations make up the 11th district? Well, the 11th district is a lot bigger than Colonel Valley, and we don't have a ton of neighborhood associations in the whole district. we have, let's see, like active one, two, three, four. We probably have about five active, but the area where this is located is in Cardinal Valley. So that's the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association. And then another neighborhood, Holiday Hills kind of backs up to it. And Holiday Hills is a little bit more inactive. Okay. And how many, so the Hope Center and the well that you mentioned how they're in which neighborhood uh the well is in cardinal valley the hope center is right across the street from cardinal valley uh there's another halfway house uh off of her sales road there's messengers which was is a mental health um housing facility which is in cardinal valley um community action center is in cardinal valley um there's that brand new community center in Cardinal Valley. Um, and there's several other homes, uh, for specific needs, uh, and low income housing in that area and off of for sales road. Okay. It's the consensus that you, from your, um, from your neighbors or your constituents that this is not, they just don't want to add another house, uh, such as this to the, uh, to the area. That is correct. Yes. For the reasons that I mentioned. Okay. All right. Thank you. If I can, along those lines, you know, we sit in these meetings often, and when neighbors are really opposed to something, we're here for three or four hours with people opposing. And I don't see other people. Do we have other people here in the audience that are against this? Yes, we do. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Just along those lines, because I'm concerned about the, I understand, I'm empathetic and understand what the councilwoman is saying, but I'm concerned about the fact that we may be saying that there's already too many services available to an area that may need the services. So if the services are needed and utilized in the area, then that may be the most suitable place for them to be. May I make a comment? Yes, yes. the issue is that the people that a lot of the people that are in these houses, housing units that are in these programs are struggling with addiction and recovery. And so when they're all together in the neighborhood, that causes a lot of issues because they're not removed from some of the things that were a challenge for them, a problem for them. And so that's the concern here is we have a concentration of this, and therefore we have a concentration of prostitution. We have a concentration of drug addiction. So they're not helping, it's not helping the atmosphere and these people in the long run get better because they're all near each other and able to continue in the same habits. And so, Ms. Reynolds, would you then put this, or would you propose to put this facility in a place where there are no other rehabilitation facilities or something like that? Is that what you're saying? Yes, if that was possible, yes. Any other questions for Ms. Reynolds? I hear none. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. If you'll unmute yourself. I don't know that it's particularly a question for Ms. Reynolds, but I would like to comment on this. This is a fairly new program with the corrections department. they are trying these rehab houses for those that have drug offenses rather than being put in prison. It's an experimental program that's been going on for a while, and I understand that this is going to be a trend across the state. So if somebody wants drugs, they can get them any neighborhood. I mean, it's not just there. And I understand that Ms. Reynolds' statement, but hopefully these are people who really want to get their lives straightened out, have some direction, have some help, to be on a bus line where they can have a chance to find a job and get started in life again. And I don't know that when I think that this community has been extremely good in providing services for help for these people, and I could say these people, and I really don't like that statement for some of our citizens that haven't perhaps had the right chances in life. So I'm not opposed to this for that reason. I think that it's a good program. There's places that it probably wouldn't fit in. But I think we're going to see more of these, and hopefully they provide a good service in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. And thank you, Ms. Reynolds. We do have other people who want to speak. and I see one hand raised and it's Mr. Patrick Salvadore. We'll be disabling your ability to speak now and we'll bring in Mr. Salvadore. Okay, Mr. Salvadore, are you there? You'll have to unmute yourself. Okay. All right. We can hear you now. Thank you very much. Would you please raise your right hand? You solemnly swear and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Well, let me say this. I strongly oppose this here because, first of all, I own three properties here, 2307, 2313, and 2309, two of which are residential properties. and I think I said I'm not sure if you got this but there's some videos of of me looking out my bedroom window to this proposed uh rehab facility and I understand she's going to take in homeless people is what she said so um that's just going to draw a crowd right to me um save your video I'm sorry? We did receive your video. At whatever point you'd like for us to show that, just go ahead and let me know, please. Okay. Thank you. And I guess I don't understand why there's a 500-foot, I mean, this 500-foot, I'm not sure what you call it, a condition, is there to help people like me and my wife. and we're not talking about a variance of 50 feet or rather you know or even 100 feet we're talking about a variance of of 450 feet and we're talking about me looking out my window and and and opening my window and hearing people talk 42 40 however many people there smoking cigarettes and you know that that that and I would think that most of these people that have an addiction problem, smoke. And this is not just what she had had there before, which was a daycare, which allowed the kids to play and have fun a couple hours a day. I suppose I'd have a problem if they had 20 or 30 kids out there at two o'clock in the morning, but they didn't. But now we're talking about having a tremendous amount of people out there on a 24-7 hour operation. And I think it was stated a few minutes ago that this is an experimental thing. Ask yourself, would you want this experiment in the back of your house 20 feet away from your bedroom window? Probably not. And now I understand, again, she's taking in homeless people because she doesn't want them living in her house at work. Don't know. I'll tell you what the federal rule is in OSHA to have smoking 50 feet away from a building. And this is going to put smoking within 20 feet of my building. And can you imagine 20 or 42 people smoking cigarettes while I'm in my backyard trying to play with my grandkid? If you look at that, in fact, we can look at that video, and this is exactly what I would see if that's okay. Sure. We will go ahead and share our screen now and show Mr. Salvadori's video. I would note that the sound quality is not excellent, but we have optimized the settings for that. I can't see it. I can hear you. that's going to be. I mean, we can pan this whole area. We're a direct line of sight. We're a direct line of sight with my kid playing in the pool. We're in direct contact with people smoking cigarettes that we try to sit on a day and enjoy a Sunday afternoon. And we're not talking about the kids that are out here from like 2 to 3 in the afternoon. There's a big difference. We're talking 24-7, 48 adults smoking, coffee, and do whatever they're going to do. And, uh, transition from general to the world, outside world, I don't need that. I don't need that looking over the heads of my kid, my grandkid. And I don't need that, and I especially don't need cigarettes. I'm talking a little bit louder this morning, but not much louder than a superhero. Can you imagine 48 people out here doing the same thing? I'm going to pan over here because there's another thorn here. I don't see you over here yet. No, you're through the fence. There won't be any leaves on those trees. Eight months out of the year, there's no leaves on those trees, so you'll have it even a much clearer sight. This is wrong. Who is it? I'll go over here. Same thing here. This is even a bigger line of sight. and I can hear you easier. based on what the Justice Board said. So this is going to have to not work. It won't work here. It won't work for us at all. Thank you. Are we back? Mr. Chair, we've stopped our screen share. And Mr. Salvador, if you have further presentation. Yes, I do, just a little bit. You know, you mentioned this 10-step program. one of the steps in this program for addicted people would be to distance yourself from any any any type of substance or any type of influence that might that might that might bring you back into that lifestyle if that's what you want to call her disease I'm not sure what they call it I'm not an expert but but it seems to me that and I've lived here for 30 years and and we're We have seen it all around here. And if I wanted to go buy a crack, I can just hop over that fence and go to the front of that building. And I can probably within five minutes find crack or whatever they do. I don't know what they do. But this is something that I need to be protected from. I mean, we're talking about this piece of property here is a residential property. And that's exactly, exactly what this 500-foot conditional, or is that what they call it, a condition? I'm not sure, is set forth to protect me and people like me. And this is just going to continue to be a, if this is, especially now that I hear it's on an experimental basis, this is not the place to experiment with this. so I'm not sure what more I have to say about this but other than the fact this is really disturbing this might fall in my backyard when my kid plays in a pool back here three-year-old grandson he can actually see the top of the door and where people are going to be smoking and that's a dangerous thing I don't want all that smoke coming over here I don't want to breathe it don't want to look at it I want to hear him talking 24-7 so I think if it would be nice if somebody would explain to me how it's possible to go ahead and give a deny this or not use this 500 foot as a as a as a standard for for this particular property being put there in relation to my house so maybe that could be explained to me why it's even why it's even thought of so I guess that's about all I've got to stay thank you Mr. Salvador do any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Salvador Mr. Salvador I'm confused I'm looking on PVA and 2309 Versailles roads owned by John and DJ Lindsay am I just looking at the wrong thing no that is correct what's happened there is I bought this property on land contract. In fact, it just got this whole property just got paid for and due to this COVID-19 we have we've got a letter stating that we do own it in fact and that we have just not taken possession of this property legally. Okay. Okay. Thanks, sir. Any other questions from board members to Mr. Salvadori? okay thank you mr salvador uh we're gonna uh demote you now and uh ask if there are any other members who wish to speak to this application any members of the of the public or citizens who want to speak in opposition to this application i don't see any hands uh raised i don't we can't identify anybody else um i do i do have a question for uh miss goddard was uh uh if you're uh if you're listening to this i uh miss goddard was the uh is the is the property look the property is located uh this 1365 Devonport Drive, it's in a professional office P1 zone. Is it adjacent to a residential zone? That is correct. The apartment buildings adjacent to the property are in a residential zone. Mr. Salvadori's property is actually zoned agricultural urban, so it's actually not a residential zone. That's not where we're measuring from. But to clarify the 500 feet a little bit, if this use were to be located 500 feet or greater from a residential zone, it would be a principal use in this zone. It would not come before you. They would just go get a certificate of occupancy and move on. Then any distance closer than 500 feet, be it 499 or be it two from a residential zone, has to go through the Board of Adjustment through this conditional use process. So that's where the 500 feet is coming from. Okay, that's where that 500 feet is. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. So the property behind this applicant property is, you say, an agricultural zone? That is correct. It's kind of a remnant piece. So the single family residences that are immediately there between Taco Bell and this property are agricultural urban zoned. The apartments to the side and kind of to the rear are residential zone. Okay. All right. I think I understand. Thank you very much. Do any members of the board have any questions or concerns that they want to ask Ms. Godowitz? Anybody else? um tommy i did just want to say a bunch of a bunch but several of the uh opposition or arguments against the program has to do with the way the program is being run or where what type of people are there or what type of cure for their issues they may have or the best environment for them to be in or not and i just want to say we should be shying away from that right that the And she will have to be, your program will have to be approved by the appropriate people, right? And they'll determine if it's a safe place or if it's an okay place or the treatments that will apply to whoever the residents are. So that's not before us now, whether we think it's a, you know, if it's helpful for those people in the program to be cured in this particular location. We're just trying to determine that if we're going to allow a variance or not for the conditional use of it. We just talked a lot about what they would do in the program. And none of us know that yet as far as experimental or non-experimental. The applicant will still have to go through all the processes with the state and all the governing bodies that will determine what's appropriate for that. Yes, we as a board are not all things to all people. We are only the Board of Adjustments. And so, like I asked Ms. Hall at the beginning, she does have to jump through more hoops other than this particular process itself. Now, Ms. Hall, you have an opportunity now to say anything you want to say in revolt of what you've heard. Would you like to, do you have anything to say that you'd like to respond to? Yes, sir. Can I share my screen for a moment? Yes, I think so. Yes, you may. Okay, what I'd like to kind of clarify some things. We are really trying, proposing to do a rehabilitation center. And I'm proposing to have security. It's not going to be a 24-hour people do whatever you want to do. We'll have curfews where people aren't out smoking and loud noise late at night. This is a picture here. We'll have video. People will have to be in at a certain time. The building will go on lockdown. We're not going to allow people coming and going. And we're going to have the audio security for all the doors when they're opening and closing. We'll be with bait security. We'll know when there's movement in the facility. We're going to offer classes, trainings for people to really become better citizens. We're not just having everyone in. When I say homeless, a lot of the people that are homeless, they have maybe addictions. They may have mental issues, what have you. I want to have a place where we address that, where we train, where we get medical, we seek medical assistance, whatever is needed to help these people. We're not just trying to house people, a boarding house, and let anything go. There are 22 million Americans currently behind bars, 25% of the world's incarcerated population. We need to have some type of systems in place where we can help people when they get out of that system so that they won't go back. We're trying to address people being rehabilitated into society, become productive members, opposed to being people or individuals who go in and out of prison a whole lifetime. My sister was one of those people. she was in and out of prison with um petty crimes or whatever she suffered from drug addiction and that's why i'm calling it tracy's house i want a place for people to be able to come and get help if they need it and that they don't die at 56 years old because there's no one there there's no place for them because some at times they share away from the family but I want to be a place even if they shy away from the family there's people in a place there for them to help that's what I want this to be okay thank you thank you Ms. Hall I'm sorry that's okay that's that's quite all right do any members of the board have any questions for Ms. Hall Any questions for applicants? And I thank you, Ms. Carter, for your earlier statement. That was helpful to me. Any questions to Ms. Hall or to planning staff? Anything else anybody wants to say before we consider this application? If not, I'll entertain a motion. We've got someone raising their hand. I'm sorry. Mr. Salvadori and other members of the public that are listening, we have ended the public comment portion of this hearing on this application. We've heard from the staff, we've heard from the applicant, and we've heard from each member of the public who wish to speak. We don't have a surrebuttal portion of this application, so we've heard from everybody. And now we have, I've offered any members of the board if they have any further questions before we present this matter for a motion. And I don't see anybody, any members of the board that want to ask any further questions. So are you ready to vote on this application? If so, I'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN VOA 20-33, Kids Unlimited Learning Center's request for a conditional use for a rehabilitation home located closer than 500 feet from a residential zone in a professional office zone on property located at 1365 Devon Fort Drive. Based on the staff's discussed recommendations and subject to all eight conditions listed in our staff report. I second the motion. A motion is made by Ms. Carter, seconded by Ms. Whitman. All those in favor, please raise your hand or vote. And it looks to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Looks like it's unanimous in favor of the application. Ms. Hall, your application is approved and good luck with your project. Thank you. and sir if you just give us a few seconds yeah i understand we got to give the staff a few minutes just to make sure that they have accomplished everything that they need to accomplish behind the scenes as far as telling votes and make it making an official record before we move on to the next application thank you Ms. Goddenweiss are you all ready for the next we are ready yes thank you the next case on the agenda is PLN BOA 20-36 BFB Holdings LLC is the applicant present Yes, Mr. Cato has raised his hand. Mr. Cato, we are moving you in as a panelist and you can go ahead and show your video and unmute, please. Hello. Okay, thank you. Thank you. before you speak let me uh let me ask you to raise your right hand yes i only swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir okay tell us about this application so i represent uh the applicant which is bfb holdings uh we have a representative of the applicant mr ryan foster is on the call as well So this project involves the building that was formerly Pazzo's on South Limestone, which closed, I believe, in December of last year. And this is a request to reopen that location with a slightly tweaked operation. There's an existing patio courtyard there, which the applicant would like to have some limited outdoor music and dancing during certain days on the weekend. And requesting a conditional use for that is required in the B1 zone, as well as a variance that's required by a 100-foot setback that's in the zoning ordinance. So that is a quick summary of what the application is about. Okay. How is this proposed conditional use going to differ from what was there before, positively? So what was there before, they had some outdoor, they had an outdoor patio area where I think they maybe broadcast UK games and certain things when the weather was nice. this will be a little bit different because there would be if permitted some live music or DJs and they covered patio there whereas before the sound came from more or less inside which was maybe moderately amplified outside so that's the slight change in that it was primarily a restaurant before too with some accessory uses whereas here It would be a primarily, I think the zoning owners calls it a nightclub or cocktail lounge. There's a specific term that it uses that changes the classification a little bit. And how do you define modestly or moderately amplified music? What does that mean? Well, I can't tell you what it was before because we didn't do any testing back when the prior owners had it and we're continuing to operate Pazos. but this would be amplified outdoor music amplified from a covered patio that exists and I've got some presentation materials that I could show you on that and walk through this in more detail if you would like some more specifics on on this before we do the question period I can walk through this in more detail about what it is okay that's gonna be helpful now okay I will go ahead and do that. Just a second here. Okay, can everybody see my screen? Yes, sir. Yes, we see it. Okay, get through here. So this is the highlighted, this is 385 South Limestone. See this large parcel here at 342 is a UK dorm. Here is the garage and mixed use property currently underway. I think it's close to getting done that UK is doing. The hub is up here. So that's sort of the orientation of the lot. generally. It's in a B1 zone. It operated as Pazos for 19 years. There were some significant improvements done in the mid-aughts. This property came up before the Board of Adjustment in 2017 with a similar but different application than the ones before you now, but there have been some significant changes to this neighborhood since 2017. That 2017 application ended in a vote of 3-3 so it didn't pass and I guess was denied by default but there have been some changes since that time that justify a different outcome here now. This is a mock-up of the project itself. It's basically the existing it's primarily this is the existing building that's here now. You can see there's a covered patio this is where the music would come from here. This is the patio area that comes up against Limestone Street here. This is all currently existing. There's some trees along as well on the other side of the road, which kind of give a natural, some sound effect. And the applicant, if approved here, would extend an outdoor covering of this patio area up to the building line of the neighboring property, which is CB Central, so as to not obscure their visibility from limestone, since that's one way, but to give some additional cover and sound dampening to not just have sound go everywhere it would go without a covering and to sort of reduce what the impact of that will be on nearby residences. As far as what the request is, the outdoor live entertainment, dancing, cocktail lounges or nightclubs, which after talking to staff, that's what this would fall into, is a conditional use in B1 where this is located. And there's a hundred foot setback from residential zones. We're requesting that we move back to 30 feet, which sounds like a big setback. I'm going to show you some drawings here to kind of explain with the layout why 30 feet is actually reasonable here. This is one of those documents. So this outlined in red here is the property itself. Down here at the bottom is the UK dorm. It's right across the street, the big dorms they built several years back. The location where this music is going to come from is about halfway back, almost halfway back in the property so it's set back a ways as is this dorm which is you know six stories so it has to be set away from the uh from the the sidewalk and the street as well so you see this is actually about 81 and a half feet from these two um and a total of from back here at the back of the patio kind of where the uh djs of the music would be set up it's it's even further So there is a little bit, it's not like we're going to have stereo set up right on the street blasting music out at the neighbors. There is a little bit of a setback here. This is just another view of the same thing that's a little bit cleaner. You can see the setback is much less when you count it from the border of the zone, which is what you have to do in Lexington under the zoning ordinance. but the actual structure that's there to be protected by that setback is much further away. So that's how the geography works. This is what the courtyard patio looks like today, more or less. The covering to be installed, if approved, would kind of go from the front building line here over to this side of the building to trap as much of that sound as possible. so that it's not going over the dorms or up into any other areas where you may have residential occupational occupancies. You all are perfectly aware what the permit is for a conditional use, but just to state it shortly, is if there's going to be any sort of an, excuse me, any sort of an adverse impact on current or future use in the neighborhood, and with the variance again what is going to affect the public health safety or welfare alter the essential character vicinity cause a hazard or nuisance or be an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance which I'm going to talk about in just a second if it's not staff has recommended approval for the reasons stated in the staff report we agree with the staff report we recommended in our application that the outdoor amplified music would be just what's traditionally in Lexington may consider weekend night which is Thursday Friday Saturday I think that's kind of standard around town that's how that's what how the weekend is treated even though most people would say it's Friday Saturday there are a lot of places that include Thursday there around town, that we would end the music at 1 a.m., which is earlier than what bars, existing bars in this area, already operate. There are a number of bars in this vicinity on the same stretch of street that continue to operate seven days a week until 2 30 in the morning that have music as part of their operation, as well as large open garage doors, which even if the music is coming from inside, the sound does not stop at the door if the door is open. And they've got these large garage doors where the sound is going out in the neighborhood. And it appears that that's not been an issue because they've operated that way at Two Keys, paddock other bar and tin roof for years and um uk built a brand new dorm in that area anyway um so i think that it's it's if it's worked there um especially in these areas up here where those bars butt up right to an r2 zone this is r2 up here um it's appropriate down here further away from those lower intensity residential zones as well. So again, this shows setbacks from various residential zones. This is South Hill Station over here, South Hill Station loss. Center Court is what it's called. Condos here at 535. Some R2 zoning here and up here as well as the UK dorm over here. just kind of give an idea of the distances that some of these properties are away from the applicant's property. This is a view of the courtyard you see in 2017 or since 2017. The hub went in so it kind of provides a natural six-story man-made buffer from these residential zones you see up here that didn't exist in 2017 when the prior application came up. And we've also done some sound testing. We had a firm from Cincinnati come down and provide their expertise to do some sound testing by playing a sample loop in our location on a professional sound system in the area where it would be set up if this application is approved, an identifiable sound loop, and then went to various locations in this vicinity to test how loud it was and how audible it was from different locations. So these are the locations that were tested. You can see here, including right in front of what was the Steak and Shake, I think it's about to be something different, on the ground floor of this dorm, as well as right in front of the property, and then down at the corner of Winslow and Upper, and then right in front of Center Court and right in front of South Hill Station Lost. And basically what the findings of that were that music even right in front of the building, like right next to the courtyard, at the volume that the applicant plans to play it, is going to get drowned out by vehicular traffic, which means they're not blasting or having an enormous noise disturbance. It's within the bounds of what the existing traffic has. The further away you get from it, across the street, it's much less audible, and that's outside the dorms. So inside, we've got modern construction, insulation. Those are going to dampen the sound even further. And if you get down to the South Hill Station area, it's basically imperceptible, particularly when traffic goes by, you can't hear the music at all. So really the existing traffic, which is a 24 seven problem this part of downtown I can attest to is living in this general area before. It creates more of a noise nuisance than what applicants proposing to do with music. So it's not going to create a nuisance in short, that this is going to be designed and controlled so that it's not creating a new nuisance for the residential uses nearby. So that's the project. I kind of went into some of my other stuff as well, but to kind of give you an overview of the details of the project and what we've done and looking at it, that's basically it. So, I'm happy to answer any questions anybody has for me. Yeah, Mr. Kater, I have a couple of questions before I open it up to the board. I know that the setbacks are all in terms of measured distances and such, but of course the thing that the part of it that would be a disturbance is not so much the distance, but the sound volume of the music. And that's why I asked you at the beginning, how do you define modestly amplified or moderately amplified music? And it looks to me like looking at the property itself from limestone, looking, I guess, northwest towards the back of the property. if you're standing in the property where you propose to have the music from the covered patio, it's almost a megaphone looking at the side of that building and the side of the building that's next door to you, which would be a natural amplification out onto limestone towards the dormitory across the street. So I'm concerned about the sound of the music coming from your location and the effect that it may have on the dormitory right across the street at you that that uk dormitory because that's that's where if it has an impact i think that's where it's going to have an impact so i can address that briefly one is that that was the the purpose in doing the sound testing is to see how much the sound is going to travel at the level of audio that the applicant intends to use. They just kind of had to create a conditional test as here's what we want to do, what's it going to sound like, and over here, kind of down in this area in front of the front door where the entrance is, which is more or less as close as you can get to the property for testing, the music was audible, but not as loud as passing traffic, or certainly not as loud as emergency sirens and things like that that you regularly hear downtown in this area all times of day and night. But that's also why the applicant, if this is approved, would put a covering over this patio to trap as much of that sound on site as possible and to not have it go up to the other higher levels of the dormitory and they're also looking at to see if there's a way that they can add some additional green barriers either additional trees or shrubs or things that may provide on on site to provide some additional sound buffer in that direction to be uh to be good neighbors to the dorm that's there on the corner they're aware of that and they're taking steps to to address that but at the end of the day we do have a noise ordinance in town and if the applicant if you approve this and the applicant creates a noise ordinance they still are going to have to deal with that. So if the cops come inside them or shut down the bar or whatever it is, that's the backstop. That's the teeth that the city has to make sure that this is kept at a reasonable level in addition to any conditional restrictions that you put on today. All right. I understand. And I, and I, and I like the idea that you're proposing to include more trevery or, or, perimeter boundary, perhaps noise catching greenery in front of the property on limestone, that would be helpful as well. You say that you had a company do some sound testing on the property and you showed us where they did their testing. Could you share that with the planning staff? I got the report late last week, and I emailed that to staff for the record, but I can also pull it up here and share that. If you all would like to see any portions of the report, I can show you specific. I don't think that's necessary. I just want to make sure that the staff has a copy of that report in the official file so that if need to, we can refer to it. So thanks. Do any members of the board have questions for Mr. Cato about this application? question for you do you uh what time of day was the sound test actually conducted it was done in the evening uh let me see i can pull it up and look here um give me just a second it was done the evening i think it was done you know between eight and ten somewhere in that range which right now it's you know with some of the bars and stuff that normally would be operational being shut down it's it's a little bit unusual doing a test down there but in a way it's more conservative because there's less background noise from other businesses and other bars that normally would be operating. So in that sense, I think we have a cleaner test, but it was done in the evening hours, you know, when a bar would normally be operating. Okay. Thanks, sir. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any other questions from, uh, from the board to the applicant? I said an applicant, but could I ask Adam a question or should I hang on? Go ahead and go ahead and ask now, Ms. Carter. Okay, Adam, didn't we approve a similar variance for the tin roof a couple years ago when they added that garage space for the outdoor music? The Tin Roof has not had an approval for outdoor music. All of their music takes place inside. They did, they originally came to the board for that indoor live entertainment and then they went to the board again to expand seating. They have never received an approval for any outdoor live entertainment. Okay, we just had the noise conversation with them because they they had the garage door open. Is that correct? I just feel like we discussed their situation the last time that this property came up back in 2017. It's just sort of a history of the overview of the neighborhood, but there have not been any new cases for that property. Okay. And I do think, as Mr. Cato said, the completion of the hub is significant, right? Like that was not there when they did the sound testing before and it was actually the neighbors that were most affected in that direction previously, wasn't it? Correct. And also new construction at the corner there where Kennedy Bookstore and Sully's was that is now going to be a mixed use parking garage for UK. That's another factor that has changed since 2017 that would probably provide some buffering for perhaps the South Hill Station and then Center Court occupants. okay okay thank you okay thank you Ms. Carter any other questions from board members for Mr. Cato all right thank you Mr. Cato we're going to now demote you temporarily so we can hear from any opposition is there any opposition to this application. I think we heard, I see one person that raised their hand, Carolyn Gago. Ms. Gago, and I apologize if we're mispronouncing that. We're going to go ahead and allow you to speak at this time. Thank you. Before you speak, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. I'm speaking because I am the president of South Hill Station. I represent 63 condos, approximately 120 people living in the building, doctors, nurses. The reason I mention them is a 12-minute walk to UK. We actually have them living in our building. We have pharmacy people, lawyers, architects, teachers, even a professor who lives there. This is a warehouse, a brick warehouse built in the early 1900s. No insulation, no fancy soundproofing, sound ricochets and echoes around. If you looked at the overhead photographs that Mr. Cato presented, there are very, very few trees in the neighborhood. it's all concrete the new garage which has gone up is echoing sound the construction noise is horrific the traffic noise is pretty bad we don't need more noise there's one pitiful little tree next to the salve building which is on the other side of us when we are completely surrounded by pavement. It's a bare building. The barrages with multiple stories and many, many residential apartments are around there. Students inhabiting these buildings need to sleep, study, live in peace, and they want to put DJ music out there. DJ music, they're calling it a cocktail lounge. They're not going to put this. They're going to put house music, techno, rap. This is what the kids like nowadays. That's who they're trying to draw to. My understanding is that these people own two keys. I don't know that for absolutely sure, but they're trying to move two keys from further toward town, further down into the residential area. If you look out the back door, you're looking immediately at center court. You look out the front door, you're looking at UK. There are five groupings here that are being adversely affected by this. The hub, which is a five or six story building, which is all apartments. South Hill Station, we are all condos. The center court, which is condos. UK's dorms across the street. And you've got the South Hill Station neighborhood. This is going to be a compliance issue. with the police because we have calls for just noise in the area. There is no particular sound ordinance for the city that I understand. We went back over this in 2017 and said, everybody said, oh, we'll look into it. And I have heard nothing since. And I've been the president for 13 years. this is going to be a problem with unruly people who get drunk too much to drink it's going to be a problem with trash it's going to be a problem with parking it's going to have fights more trash there are no public bathrooms more trash it's going to be a nuisance to all the neighbors who live there and with an unreliable sound ordinance there's even if one has been discussed since 2017 which I haven't heard about I don't believe the peace the police can patrol this without continuously going and we all know that the city pays for the police. My other worry is it's going to lower property values in the area it's going to make it harder to get good renters and to keep them. It's going to make it more difficult for us to keep our rents elevated. It's going to change the character of the vicinity, and I think it's going to change it for the worse. I don't mind the music indoors, but outdoors is something different. The places like the 10 roof are a whole block further closer to a town, away from the residential areas. It was voted down last time. I believe it's the right thing to do this time is to vote it down. I think it's going to be a noise a nuisance to the city shining university area and I think the city's backyard is going to appreciate it if you voted it down thank you thank you miss Gago any questions for this Gago I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that correctly you are okay thanks any questions from the board to Ms. Gago. I don't see any hands raised. So thank you, Ms. Gago. We appreciate your comments and we're going to now demote you. And I see a hand raised. Mr. Robert Ryan, is that correct? Mr. Ryan, we're going to elevate you so we can hear from you. So unmute yourself and we will hear what you have to say. Are you there? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. I'm here. I'm an attorney with Wyatt Taron-Combs in Lexington. I represent the Center Core Condominium Owners Association. They had a similar concern when this came up before, in 2007, when it was voted down. With all due respect to the staff case report, it seems like that they have reviewed this under the conditions as a cocktail lounge. And if you look at the definition of a cocktail lounge in the zoning ordinance, it's a commercial establishment dispensing and serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and in which live entertainment exclusive of dancing is permitted. This use does not conform with what's being described as a cocktail lounge, or I think they've said it was an upscale cocktail lounge. It doesn't fit that definition. I also question... How does it not fit that definition? Well, the cocktail lounge is defined, says, I'll repeat, a commercial establishment dispensing and serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and in which, not on which, but in which live entertainment exclusive of dancing is permitted. And here they're asking for dancing and they're asking that the entertainment be outside. So I don't think it fits into the definition of what a cocktail lounge is under our zoning ordinance. Also, if you look at the staff case report, they refer to H16D5. And that is really for indoor live entertainment and dancing. It's not the right section. I think the section that they intended to refer to was H16D4, which is the outdoor live entertainment or dancing or cocktail lounge or nightclub. So I have concern that perhaps the staff case report contains some errors and maybe was not reviewed under the proper standards. I also have a question as to whether this is a permissible variance. If we get beyond the conditional use, which again, before I move on, I'll say that for the record, the center court is against this. They're against it for the sound noise, for the operation hours, for the outdoor music. If you allow this, you'll be setting a precedent for that neighborhood. I know when this came up before a question was asked by one of the gentlemen on the Board of Adjustment about music till one o'clock in the morning on Thursday night. And the comment was, well, students don't study on Thursday night. I don't think that's the case. And so it's also that that music being amplified. We don't know what the application was, what the tests were. It could have been low volume. But as Ms. Cato stated, my clients indicate that they have professional folks that also live in that, not only students, but the students also have to study. And that that music bounces off those buildings and bounces off that new big UK dorm back towards the center court building. Comes right across that open parking lot. And it's a real problem. you have the situation where it was described the tin roof is on up the street it's a ways from it the music is in inside they do open the doors but apparently that has not been approved for any kind of outdoor music but that's a different situation you had the two keys which was loud enough now it's shut down and it sounds like they're trying to move this two keys operation down the street the two keys was probably grandfathered in since it's been there since all of us were in college and then probably before. And so it was what it was. But now we're dealing with a situation where, you know, the Board of Adjustment will be setting a precedent to allow outdoor music all up and down that strip if you allow this one. You're opening the door and it's already a problem. Noise is a problem. You've heard it. We've got professionals in there who need sleep. They don't need to be up with music blaring until 1 a.m. in the morning. And students do need to study. But beyond that, I also question whether looking at the variance statute, it's a little bit unclear as to whether this would be a variance that the Board of Adjustment has the authority to make. the 76b says the boards have the power to hear and decide applications for variances that are defined as departures from the dimensional terms of the zoning ordinance pertaining to the height width or location of structures and the size of yards and open spaces and then it goes on to say the board may grant a variance for dimensional requirements only and may not vary other numerical, numeric requirements or limits of the zone. And here, if you look at that, even if you get to the conditional use, it says it must be at least 100 feet from the residential zone. There's a reason for that. You don't need this loud music, and it will be loud, and they may tell you it's not going to be, but you know it's going to be, and it will be loud, and it will be late, and it'll be on Thursday night and Friday night and Saturday night. And that's why this provision requires it to be at least 100 feet from a residential zone. It's clearly within, what, 30 feet of a residential zone with residences all around and it will adversely affect those communities down there and the people that live in those. and I would as Mr. Cato put up on the board but if you grant such a variance you have to say this this board has to determine that it will not adversely affect the public health or safety or welfare or alter the essential character of the general vicinity or cause a hazard or nuisance to the public that's what you have to find as one of the prerequisites to allow this type of a variance. And certainly it's going to be very difficult for the board to do that because it does negatively impact the safety and the health and welfare. And it will change the character of the general vicinity because this is a predominantly residential area. You've got UK dorms, huge dorms across the way. You've got Center Court, which has 158 units. You have the large South Hill Station and now you have the larger hub all sitting right in there they're all residential and they would all take the impact of this music also it says the requested variance must arise from a special circumstance that do not generally apply to the land in the general vicinity there's no special circumstance here and the strict application would deprive the applicant the reasonable use of the land and create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant that would not be the case. Pazos existed for how many years? We've all gone to Pazos. We loved their pizza at the time. But it operated and it didn't have this type of music outside. Any music inside, they can buffer it and they would be required to do it. So for all those reasons, my client, Center Corp, and it's 180 unit owners would request, 158 unit owners would request that this application be denied and just like it was in 2007 because you're going to severely impact negatively this area and all these students and professionals and other people that live in and try to work from these residential buildings. I'll take any questions if you have anything. Thank you Mr. Ryan. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Ryan. Mr. Walker. A couple quick ones. Do you believe, I mean, if it was unamplified music, would you have any issue with that? And then the second question of that would be a timeframe. If it ended earlier, would there be any issue or is it absolutely no music whatsoever? Well, I think the amplification is an issue, very much so, because we don't know what the test was, but there was another test that was done by some similar sound engineer back in 2007. And it did indicate that there would be sound issues with those surrounding properties. I don't have a copy of that. I've looked for it, but I just don't have it in my file. So if they didn't amplify it and maybe they had non-amplified music, that certainly would be a lot better because you can imagine, we all know what amplified music sounds like. And then the amp gets turned up. The later it gets, the drunker people get, the more carousing goes on. And it does become a serious problem down there. And your second was about the hours. Well, you know, all these and last time they came up, they said they couldn't operate if they limited the hours to say 11 o'clock or, you know, 8 to 11 or 10 to 11 or 10 to 12. the bar owner said that wasn't something that was feasible for them to operate they needed to operate late to be able to capture enough income to make this thing work so i guess i meant more of hours of having amplified music like let's just say that they shut down at 11 which is kind of the good neighbor guy type stuff would that be something that you think would be that would be more preferable yes i mean certainly that that's more of a reasonable hour for people to get professionals to get in bed. But again, it just depends on how loud that music is and when it starts, especially on Thursday night. But also, you know, that's, it's just going to be hard to police. It is. And that's kind of what I'm trying to, you know, I'm gun shy from this because we rented the Cosmic Charlies. I think Chad, you inherited them after we did. And the, the, the noise ordinance part of it is, yeah, it is enforceable. it takes a long, long time. And it's during that process, if there is a noise complaint, it could take a year or two years to actually come to resolution, especially with the bar because they don't want to jeopardize ABC license, but they're still trying to make it work for everybody. And it's, it can be a long drawn out thing. And that's a whole semester of kids that have had that issue. You know what I mean? I want loud music, but you know, that's kind of my concerns. Well, I agree with you. And I think live music inside with the proper buffering is fine. But here we're talking about amplification outside. And, you know, as Ms. Cato mentioned, that negatively impacts also the value of these condo units and these people's residential properties. And certainly they're asking this board to do what they think to be the right thing and to turn this down. Thanks, sir. I appreciate it. I have a question. Mr. Ryan, based on our current situation, wouldn't you agree that most of what we're going to be doing is more outside, more outdoor, we're doing more outdoor patio restaurants, more outdoor music would actually, I would expect we would see more of this than less of it. I just think we need to take that into consideration that we could be going that direction for sure. I would say in the short term, you're probably right, because of the COVID-19 requirements the governor's put on. But that's certainly, let's all hope anyway, that that's a semi-temporary thing. I mean, it's not going to be in the short run, but at some point in time, let's all hope and pray that that goes away. And so you would already have that precedent set up and that this would last beyond that. I mean, they can have the patio, but it's this amplification of this music that's outside that will continue. And again, this will set a precedent for all those other bars up and down and bars to open up and down there in that area. And it'll just get worse instead of better. But yes, I think right now, you're right, people are more outside and that's a better place to be, but I don't think that's a long-term answer. Well, also, I guess my main issue is when you make the comment about it not fitting with the vicinity. I know it doesn't fit with maybe the backside or if you go further up street, but this section right here, it does just seem to, it seems to fit with the entertainment restaurant bar block of the limestone right there. well there obviously have been restaurants in there there's been there's been other establishments but we haven't had this outdoor music amplification which is a totally different animal and if you start getting all of those amplifying music outside it's going to really change the neighborhood and it's going to make it a whole lot louder it's just going to be a real problem down there for all these people that have homes and also have condos and live there okay any other questions for mr ryan yeah i want to just this is mr clark mr ryan i'm just not convinced that the sound coming from this from this patio is going to be particularly intrusive of your folks. I mean, I'm very familiar with that area. Taught at UK, been to Pazos many times, driven past that. I just can't see how the sound from that patio is going to affect your folks. Now, I would be more concerned about the dorm across the street. but given the given the distance between the patio and the dorm which is more than 150 feet actually and probably twice that much to your folks frankly I just cannot see how that's going to really impact those folks if there's any insulation whatsoever in the condos there. I just cannot see how that's going to be, how those folks are going to be impacted. So I'd appreciate your response. Mr. Clark, you know, the concern is that that sound will bounce off of those UK dorms back towards Center Court. It also comes out the backside of the operation. It's not self-contained to that property. I mean, if you, and as was previously stated by Ms. Cato, there are no trees down there. There are no buffers down there. It's all concrete, and it's all streets, and it's all noise. And it just amplifies the sound down there. And it's, my clients have told me that it would adversely affect that they can hear what goes on some up there at what was the two keys. And it's even farther. So they do have concerns about how that's going to impact and how loud it's going to be over there. They said they really do. And again, UK dorms are right in the line of fire, so to speak, for this music. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Any other questions for Mr. Ryan before we let him go? I see none. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. We're going to demote you. Thank you for hearing me. Sure. Appreciate your testimony. Is there anybody else, any other citizen or member of the public who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? I don't see any hands raised. I have a question for Chad Edwards, Department of Law. Mr. Edwards, you are here. Could you, yeah, thank you. I have a question. We have in the past subjected some applications to an annual review, and I know we've done that on occasion. Do you recall us doing that, and do we have the authority to do that? What would that mean? um yeah that's an excellent question as you uh probably recall i'm not your typical attorney for staffing this board so i'm not aware of previous instances where you've done that um is staff uh is staff available to speak to that oh yes so historically that has been done on a rare occasion um i can't really think of any that have been done in recent years although all of our conditional uses are inspected once annually by our inspectors. So if an inspector went and found that the conditions were not being met, that would trigger a return trip to the board. I think what you're talking about is more of a they would come back to the board one year later regardless, and you all would be able to assess whether or not there had been any impacts, and that is something that has historically been done on occasion, but not frequently and not recently. Yeah, I've been on the board a long time and I know we've done it in the past but I think the and the reason I raised the question is purpose the purpose I think that we did it for in the past was to determine whether or not the conditional use should continue which is a fairly draconian remedy and I'm not sure I wanted to want to impose it on this application but if you're telling me that conditional all conditional uses are reviewed annual is that correct? That is correct. Okay, and that that satisfies me, and if a conditional use, if there's been a violation of the conditional use, the inspection would reveal it, and we would, we would get a report, or would be reported to us through staff, is that right? Correct, and additionally to that, if a neighbor noticed that a condition that they knew was a condition was not being met, they could bring that forward as a complaint at any time, regardless of whether or not it was time for the annual inspection, which would trigger an inspection. Okay, fair enough. That answers my question. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the board to Autumn or Chad Edwards while we've got them up? We can see them. Seeing none. Okay, then Mr. Cato, this is your opportunity to respond and rebel to anything that you've heard from the members of the public speaking in opposition to the application so what do you have to say so i just want to point out a a couple of things i won't take too long with this is one is that as of 12 o'clock today there were two letters in opposition um one from uk with some concerns and there's nobody at the meeting representing UK now and the other from a resident at Center Court Condos, one individual who said he was opposed to this. We've not heard from any of the hundreds of other condo unit owners at South Hill or at Center Court to the extent that Ms. Gago and Mr. Ryan represent those associations. They represent the board of directors or the council of those associations. They don't represent the all of those hundreds of unit owners over there. So I want to make that distinction that when they say they're opposed, what they mean is the board of directors of the associations are opposed, which is different than saying there's 400 people in opposition and on lockstep. We've not heard from any other members over there. So we have to assume that the one we heard from is the one who felt strongly enough to make an appearance or write a letter. as far as the South Hill station comments go this neighborhood has already changed the hub is up there's an enormous mixed-use project in place and I just want to share my screen for a second to show you one thing about this to point out on that mixed-use Can everybody see my screen? Yes. Okay, so this is what that's going to look like when it's done, and as you can see it goes basically all this is center court back here. South Hill Station is completely on the other side of this. You can see parking, there's mixed use, there's a West Six Brewery going in other places down here, and there's parking towards the rear to go with the the existing parking that's already in this area over here. This is a loud section of town due to the traffic that exists, and this development is not going to improve that. I mean, I don't think anybody has any illusions about that, but the fact of the matter is this vicinity has already changed, and the city has already decided that these developments are acceptable in infill and in downtown areas, and there need to be services to satisfy the professionals and the students that live in these condos and these dorms nearby. So I will just point out that to suggest that our relatively small bar with music on the other side of the building, on the front side of the limestone side, is going to cause a big noise problem back here, but that this development is not problematic or is not going to change that the flow of sand I kind of question that conclusion um to the extent the police may have difficult enforcing the noise ordinance the noise ordinance is on the books I've represented clients who have dealt with the noise ordinance it is real it has teeth in it if it doesn't have enough teeth in it the council is can change at any time people can ask the council to change it if they like but the fact of the matter is we have a noise ordinance it says what it says the police enforce it and the council has determined that it works because they've not made any changes to it recently as far as i know so those are enforcement questions but that is that as i'm not telling you anything you don't know the board of adjustment does not draft the noise ordinance um so that's uh that's a separate issue there um to the extent there's been a lot of concern about amplified music and a lot of what I would call scare mongering about it is all amplified means is it's through a powered speaker of some kind your iPhone you watch a YouTube video is amplified sound the sound you hear in Kroger when you go shopping that you can barely hear what they're saying or at Christmas time kind of vaguely hear some jingle bells and that's about it that's amplified sound so the idea that it's going to automatically be loud obnoxious intrusive music because it is technically amplified of music is is not correct especially in light of the existence of the noise ordinance and the steps that the applicant is going to take to minimize that burden on any neighboring property they're aware of the neighborhood they're buying into and they're taking steps to address that so they can be good neighbors I also want to point out that the there's been two comments made about two keys is moving to this location um that was in a news story that was reported on friday um that as far as i know they never communicated with the applicant to ask what was actually happening there um so that's speculation and even if it's not two keys existed right next to a residential neighborhood and across basically caddy cornered from that dorm that uk built a few years ago for years and so even to take that argument for true which i'm not saying it is or is it frankly i don't know if it's true or not um but that's not like it's the end of the world two keys is there many years um and this is again this sort of scaremongering that it's going to be this horrible development for the neighborhood when in reality it's not going to change anything the neighborhood already already is what it is and i also in closing just want to point out Mr. Ryan said a few times they and last time and they in 2017 the last time it was before the board of adjustment this was a different owner a different applicant a different ownership group that had a different plan than was before the board today so to the extent all those comments about they and last time and stuff they're completely irrelevant it's different people different project in addition to all the changes that have been made in this neighborhood since 2017 this is appropriate we agree with the staff support within the staff did a good job identifying these issues and we're in agreement with it and we ask that you vote to approve it. Thank you Mr. Cato I would like to point out something you said that there was an interest to me and I and I probably need to say that I'd like to think that this board considers the quality and the relevance of the points that any opposition make and not the volume of people who make it. I know that people like to get a lot of people down to the chamber when we are meeting, thinking that the greater number of people will have a greater effect on the decisions of the board, but I like to think that this board makes its decisions based more on the relevance and the quality of the opposition than simply how many people show up, because not everybody can show up. Everybody can comment, but not everybody can attend. So thank you, Mr. Cato, for that. Any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Cato before? Any other questions for Mr. Cato? Hearing none, what is your pleasure? Are you ready to take a vote? Mr. Chair, could you make a similar comment as you did on the previous application about the closure of the public comment? Yes, I do see Mr. Ryan's hand raised, and Mr. Ryan, we have heard from the public, and we don't have any mechanism for allowing a sir rebuttal to the things that Mr. Cato said. So we appreciate your concern and your interest in the application, but we're not going to hear any further from any other public comments. We've heard from the people that are in opposition. Thank you. So any further comments from the staff or from the board? before we take a vote. I don't see any hands or anything. What's your pleasure, I'll entertain a motion. I can make the motion. I move for approval of PLN BOA 20-36 BFB Holdings LLC's request for conditional use to establish a cocktail lounge with both indoor and outdoor live entertainment and or dancing and a variance to reduce the required distance for outdoor live entertainment from 100 feet from a residential zone to 30 feet within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business zone on property located at 385 South Limestone Street based on the staff's recommendations and subjectivity for listed conditions. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. All those in favor, Ms. Whitman, we need to see your face. All those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. All those opposed? One opposed, Mr. Walker. The ones that are in favor are Ms. Whitman, Ms. Carter, Mr. Clark, Mr. Needham, and Mr. Walker is opposed. Okay, did the staff get all that? We seem to be okay. Okay, good. All right, thank you very much. The project is approved. good luck with that. We hope we don't hear further, Mr. Cato, from this application. We hope you'll be a good citizen to your neighbors. I know that there are some that were very much opposed to this, but as you know, this project is located right in the middle of a continuing development, and so we hope you'll be good neighbors. Thank you. We will. Thank you very much. Okay. It's past four o'clock and we haven't had a break for the past two and a half hours. I recommend we take a 10 minute break unless anybody's opposed to that. So we'll stand adjourned for 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. back in session. It's been 10 minutes. Thanks everybody for staying with us. And I apologize to the last application on the agenda for allowing us that break, but we needed it. So the next item on the agenda, the application is PLN VOA 20-37 L. Roberts properties. And it's a request for conditional use. Is the applicant represented? Mr. Roberts is on the line. Okay. Mr. Roberts, where is he on the screen? Mr. Roberts, if you can unmute yourself and enable your video. There you go. We can see you now. There are two of you there who are who's present. I'm Kevin Flanagan. I'm the chief executive officer of Roberts heavy duty towing. I'm Jimmy Anderkin, DOC compliance officer here at Roberts heavy duty towing. Mr. Chair, may I ask about one of the other members of the public? Gentleman from the Roberts heavy duty towing. We also have a Lee Roberts from Lee Roberts Properties. Are they part of your development team? Yes, sir. He's our owner. Lee Roberts is the president of the company. Okay. We're allowing Mr. Roberts to come on in. He's on the phone. Okay. Yeah, I'm unmuted. Okay. Kevin, if it's the speaking for us, if needs be, I can. Okay. And who's the third person? Jimmy, what's your last name? It's Anderton. A-N-D-E-R-K-I-N. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Flanagan, you're going to be speaking, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, tell us about this project. I'm sorry. Before you speak, raise your right hand. All three of you, raise your right hand. Mr. Roberts, Mr. Anderkin, and Mr. Flanagan, all three, raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yeah, I do. And Mr. Lee Roberts? I do. Okay, thank you. All right. Mr. Flanagan, tell us about this project. So the project, which is the primary address or the address that we're actually going to use is 757 East 7th Street. The primary function of this property will serve as a towing and recovery lot. Vehicles are involved in accidents, broke down, abandoned, impounded by police, private property owners, etc. We towed back to this location until further arrangements were made for them to be removed. vehicles that are seized by U.S. Marshals, U.S. Department of Treasury, be towed and stored in this designated area, which was on the map that we sent in on our site map. And this is basically moving our business, which is currently operating on 1001 Manchester Street over to this location. To increase our size, we're limited on space on Manchester Street currently. I believe we're operating in just under three acres there. Total size of this property is just a tick under 10 acres. Okay. I have a question about the drawing that you sent in, the ones with the colored lines. I guess it's on the first page. Is your operation just inside the red line, or is that, tell me the extent of this. So it's broke out. Basically, the green outline is the total property that we own. Okay. Which is the, and looking at it across, if you're at 7th Street looking down the entrance of 757, that would actually be the entranceway there and where our proposed office is by the pin location. The other, the red outlined area is what we would call our general vehicle storage area. where we would store vehicles that are impounded by the city involved in an accident that are temporarily brought in. And then we have also the private property impound area. That is where we would store vehicles that are impounded for legally, legally parked apartment buildings, handicapped spots where people have parked legally. Then when you move up to the white area that's outlined in white, that is where we will store U.S. Marshall vehicles that have been seized and we would have indoor as well as outdoor storage for those vehicles. And then the area that is outlined by the light blue, that's our large vehicle storage and training area. We do a lot of training with Lexington Fire Department as well as surrounding county fire departments and that's where we would stage vehicles, rollovers. We do a lot of setup for the fire departments so they can practice removing vehicles and extricating people out of damaged vehicles. Tell me in relation to Magnolia Avenue, Where is the entrance to this property? It is directly across the street from Magnolia. Well, if you were coming off of Magnolia onto 7th, you would just bear right slightly. Okay. And is that the only entrance and exit to the property? Yes, sir. Okay, so it's only got one ingress and egress. Thank you. Okay. we have the staff report and we've heard from you. Any questions from the members of the board with respect to this application? Y'all need anything clarified? A quick question. Are there any requirements for along the 7th Street or along the chain-link corridor? Are there any landscaping requirements or shrubbery requirements or anything to shield some of that from the main corridor? Currently there's a chain link fence up there and we are required to have eight foot of chain link for the property to store those vehicles. As of now I'm not aware of any requirements for shrivery or greenery. Okay. And Autumn, is that because it's an industrial zone? So that's not, those things aren't required? There would not be any zone-to-zone screening for any parking areas. There would be a vehicular use screening requirements. Okay. And that'll be part of the plan that gets submitted to traffic engineering. Okay. They go to get their permits. Okay. Thank you. okay um any other questions for the applicant i i have i have a question is so this property just give me a brief history it obviously it used to be baker and then it was purchased by cohen and then it seems like we heard something that was happening here it came to the board of adjustment maybe a year ago or a couple years ago and I thought it was more of a like a 17 the Cohen properties request was to change the nonconforming use from scrap iron storage to a junkyard for a pull-apart type junkyard it doesn't appear that that use really ever took hold it looked like the site got cleaned up substantially from when it had been scrap iron storage. It doesn't look like the junkyard use based on aerial photos ever really took place. The applicant may have a little bit better idea of the history of that. I can elaborate on that. Cohen at one time was going to lease that out to a company out of Louisville for basically come in and pull your own parts off of vehicles that were they would purchase around Kentucky, southern Ohio, and you would come in, pull your own parts. They're pretty common, but that deal never came to be. And in the meantime, while that was being tabled, we purchased the property from Cohen. The history on it has been, it's pretty much always been industrial in that area. uh there there's been there was a lumber yard there at one time prior to cohen having it um and then when cohen had it it's pretty much been a scrap yard or scrap metal facility and processing area for for the majority of its life i think at one time or another there was a few buildings that were located right off of seventh street uh that were taken down either by baker or Cohen, but it's pretty much been a really heavily used area. We've been doing a lot of cleanup since we've had it. And I take it this is not going to be a junkyard? No, no. Well, we conduct ourselves here at our location here to have a little bit more curb appeal than what it's had in the past. So we look to improve the area and hopefully pump some life back into that area of 7th Street. Okay. A couple of questions. This is Mr. Clark. When vehicles are not reclaimed, what happens to them? They're parked in your facility and nobody reclaims them. Then what happens and how often does something happen? Typically, those vehicles are either, depending on what their value is, there's a number of ways that we dispose of them. Either selling to an outside company that they take and park the vehicles out, or they get sold to a bank or a scrap yard and they're crashed. Okay. And one other quick question. In my thinking about lots like this, I see an awful lot of security in terms of very secure fences. And you said that there's a chain link fence there. Is there any improvement involved there? or are you happy with the security that you're going to have? Well, we currently have at the back portion of the property is a concrete block wall that shields us from basically between the property and the railroad tracks. And as we go on, the fencing that's there is obviously going to be addressed. and have something that's a little bit more appealing, such as a block wall like we've constructed at the back. Thank you. You had a solid privacy fence at your operation on Manchester Street. Do you propose the same thing at this location? Along East 7th, eventually. Yeah, because one of the items in here was the fencing that should be moved back by Pete from the public right away. And I believe we're going to address that with a block wall. Similar to what Cohen uses off of old Frankfurt. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant from the members of the board? All right. We have, do we have, this was an application that we had some opposition to. is anyone in the audience in the public, any citizens in opposition to this application? If you are, raise your hand, please. Yes, I'm on your own list. Yes, Mr. Hamilton. He cannot raise his hand because he's on a phone line. Mr. Hamilton, we have elevated you so we can hear you. Can you hear us? Yes, sir. Very well. Okay, thank you. Do you want to speak in opposition to this application? Do you want to swear me in? Yes. First, I want to know if you're here to speak in opposition to this application. Yes, sir, I am. Yes, sir, I am. I thought that was obvious. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I will. Okay, thank you. What say you? um my family owns 690 684 and 694 east loudon avenue if you're looking at the uh piece of paper with the red line we pretty much own everything on the other side of the railroad track on the opposite side of this property from 7th street there's probably maybe about another 100 feet that leads up towards the uh bridge that uh belongs to the people who they're This piece of property, I've lived there. Well, I was born and raised there on 690 and 684 is where I live. But our main concern is going to be lighting and noise. If you remember, they brought up what was going to be the pull-apart. When we showed up at the meeting for the pull-apart adjustment, our main complaint was Sunday hours. and now we're going from just sunday hours in a retail setting to seven days a week 365 days a year 24 hours a day and i and the the work that they were talking about doing uh mr atkinson was talking about doing they've got a roller over now where they're raising the elevation of the property and that has something to do with uh some sort of environmental remedy they've came up with and that's going to do nothing but so more lights on us it's going to throw more noise on us um it i heard a beeper backing up on a piece of earth moving equipment they had over there sitting on the back porch i meant to play a recording of that for you all today but i couldn't log on to the meeting with my computer and the recordings on my phone and i mean we heard the beep on the backup alarm and then the backup alarm is our main concern for noise and i have talked to them and uh they seem concerned about that also um they're talking about trying to get it down to 80 decibels 80 decibels is the osha requirement my brother served on the noise ordinance committee with linda gordon for like four or five years and uh that pretty well fell And our main concern for putting so much time into that noise ordinance committee was because of Baker's crap. And I've seen a representative from Robert that if these people are good neighbors, they'll be the first good neighbors we've had there in my lifetime. And they seem to be genuine about that. But I would like some conditions put on whether or not they can bring their records all the way to the back of the property in after hours from, say, like 10 p.m. till 7 a.m. in the morning. Because at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon, that backup alarm on my back porch was clear as a bell. So 4 o'clock on Sunday morning, that's going to be ringing like church bells. So, you know, those are my concerns, the concerns of my family. Mr. Hamilton, give me the address of your properties again. It goes from 684 East Loudoun Avenue. That belongs to myself and my brother. then 690 East Loudon Avenue is where my brother resides and then the property up the hill from that belongs to my sister-in-law Eva Hamilton and I'm not exactly sure what that number is but it would probably be 694. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Any questions from the board to Mr. Hamilton? Mr. Hamilton, are those all of your concerns? Pretty much. They were in the letters that myself and my brother sent. Okay. Yeah, I had a question for Mr. Hamilton. Yeah. What's your thought of the proposed concrete wall that's eight foot high? Do you see that from the back of your properties? Oh, clear as a bell. So there is a wall there. It says proposed, but there's currently a wall. They tore down the chain link fence that Baker had, and they did a really good job of cleaning up the scrub brush. Like I said, Baker was not a good neighbor. the back fence was pretty ratty looking and it's clean as a bell now they spent quite a bit of time and effort on that and then that equates to money and what they call a block wall is not your normal 8 by 1 foot block they're the highway barriers they're probably maybe 3 foot long 2 foot wide by two foot, and they stack them like Lego blocks. And they're not unappealing. We've seen a lot worse back there. I've told them what they've got now is not adequate for their security, though. And security is an issue for us, too. We've had numerous people come to our property and use our property for access to break into bakery. And by numerous, I mean 25 or 30. is a major issue that Baker and Cohen was even worse about that particular issue. I don't see that problem with these folks. But I think they're a little bit more conscientious. But they have seemed a little reluctant to commit to keeping the lights down and the noise. And those are my issues. and they do seem like they want to be good neighbors and I'd like to say to Mr. Roberts welcome to the neighborhood and I would like to meet you and talk to you if I can speak we can set that up all right very cool thank you sir I point out to you Mr. Hamilton there is a condition number five is a very common condition that we oppose on applications like this. I did not get a list of the conditions. Okay, let me read it to you. It says any pole lighting from the parking lot shall be of a shoebox designed with light directed downward to avoid disturbing adjoining residential areas along the northern border of the subject property. How tall will that lighting be? I don't know. because they've raised the elevation of that property now. And if that lighting is – and Baker had lighting that was 50 or 60 foot high. And if they go with just four or five poles with huge, great big lights on it, then, I mean, that's going to light our backyard up like a Christmas tree. And I've sort of hinted around to this fellow. I've not been real super direct about getting him to commit to what they're putting back there. And he tells on me, they have a contract obligation to light that field or light that yard. But I mean, he's not been super specific about what that is. Well, the, you know, the condition is a standard general condition that for lighting and it applies to almost everybody. so perhaps when you and Mr. Roberts talk you can talk about that. Well I mean you know that's the by the time I get to talk to Mr. Roberts we've already going to have this vote here in about 10 minutes I'm guessing. You're right. So I mean you know I'd like to have something a little bit more concrete than you know Mr. roberts good intentions which i have no reason to doubt but uh you know i've uh i've been abused back there now for since i was born in 1960 and my parents bought that property in the 40s so you know and i'll go back further the lumber yard was on the border of 7th street and the scrapyard was behind it. And when I was a kid, there were cows back there. And we've yet to have a neighbor as good as a cow. Well, I don't think there are going to be any cows on the property. No, sir. But the lighting condition is designed to avoid disturbing adjoining residential areas along the border. So that's the intent of it. And that's the intent. So that's the answer to that question. Anything else, Mr. Hamilton? No, sir. Any questions from the board to Mr. What about, I'm sorry, sir. I'd like to get a response on keeping the traffic down against the back scent from the hours from like 10 till 7 in the morning or 6 in the morning. Is that the possibility? The applicants will have a chance to respond to all public comments, so we'll let them respond after you're through speaking. Thank you all. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Is there anybody else in opposition? No, sir. We don't see anybody. Okay. So, Mr. Flanagan, you heard Mr. Hamilton's concerns. What do you have to say about that? Well, and I can answer his question as it pertains to the backup alarms. We only use the backup alarms on our carriers. The carriers are primarily used for wreck recoveries. and those vehicles are equipped with a backup alarm that adjusts to the volume or the environment in which they're operated in. In other words, if you're in a noisy industrial environment, the backup alarm will reach 107 decibels. Otherwise, it operates underneath 85 decibels, like I said, depending on the environment that you're in. Backing at night between those hours is going to be minimum. We try to come in, drop our cars because typically it's dark. And a lot of the times that we've rearranged a lot during the daytime hours. The activity on Saturdays and Sundays is not nearly what it is during the week. So I really don't foresee that as being an issue. in terms of lighting we do have the shoebox lighting we do we are going to follow the guidelines here as far as lighting the lot it doesn't really benefit us to light up the whole neighborhood we just need to light up the area where we're working and obviously keep any light that's going off to adjacent properties down to a minimum it's not very cost effective for us to light of the whole neighborhood. And in terms of the security, I think that Mr. Hamilton should see a decrease in the traffic across this property where manned 24 hours. We'll have people on the lot. We have the block wall. That's part of the reason we went with that is because the people that are going through those areas are simply cutting holes in the fence and going on through. So I would see that as a large improvement. Mr. Plannigan, your property is not in a flood zone, is it? No. Mr. Hamilton mentioned something about changing the elevation of the property. Tell us about that. We haven't changed the elevation. He's mistaken. What we've done is we've removed material and replaced material. there's concrete pads out there on site and we basically just removed the trash and whatnot that was left by Baker you know when they moved out there was a lot of fluff and disturbed ground so we basically took that down and we refilled it with crushed steel. Okay, making it uniform so you can store vehicles out soon. Correct. And you know the only you know that we have all of our plants submitted with the city as well as the state and so there you know Everything that we do on there is heavily monitored by the city and the state as far as the project. Okay. Thank you. Any questions by the members of the board to the applicant? I don't see any hands or any interest in asking you any further questions. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNBOA 20-37 L. Roberts Properties. Request for a conditional use for a vehicle storage yard within the defined infill and redevelopment area in the light industrial zone, heavy industrial, with conditional zoning zone on property located at 745, 747, 751, 757, 765, and 775 East 7th Street, based on the staff's recommendation and the seven conditions that are listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. All those in favor, signify by raising your hand. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It looks like it's unanimous. So Mr. Clark made a motion. Ms. Whitman seconded it, and it's unanimous. Your application is approved. Good luck with your project. Thanks very much, Mr. Mark. Okay. That concludes all the applications that are before the Board of Adjustments this August 10th. Are there any other matters to come before the Board? Any matters of concern by Board members? Mr. Chair, I'd like to just say thank you for pinch hitting today. You've done a great job. I always get at least an hour's notice before I have to step in. I appreciate Mr. Gross telling me in advance. Our next meeting date is September 14th, my son's birthday. So Mr. President Abraham Lincoln sitting behind me, and I now declare this Board of Adjustment meeting adjourned. Hey, Tommy. Tommy, I'm sorry. Are we planning to Zoom next month as well? As far as I know, it will be until Friday. Okay. Thank you. If anything changes, we will, I'll be the first to know. Thank you so much, everybody. See you next month.