# Board of Adjustment - September 14, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 14, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5209 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5209?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-09-14 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 27,756 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 met on September 14, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference, with Branden Gross presiding. The board considered five agenda items, taking five motions and votes during the session. The meeting included three public comments from members of the public. Of the five items on the agenda, four were approved and one was postponed. The approved items included a variance appeal for L O P 1 LTD (PLN-BOA-20-00039), conditional use appeals for Damon Powell (PLN-BOA-20-00038), Southern Hills Methodist Church (PLN-BOA-20-00040), and Ecton Farm, LLC (PLN-BOA-20-00043). The conditional use appeal for Doug Vescio (PLN-BOA-20-00042) was postponed. ## Attendance The following 15 individuals were present at the meeting on September 14, 2020: * Branden Gross * Thomas Glover * Joan Whitman * Harry Clarke * Raquel Carter * Chad Needham * Chad Walker * Tracy Jones * Steve Parker * Traci Wade * Autumn Goderwis * Hal Baillie * Stephanie Cunningham * Donna Lewis * Allison Morris No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Conditional Use for Home-Based Business (Personal Training) at 1121 Parliament Way** [timestamp: 00:27:40] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Thomas Glover. The board unanimously approved a conditional use permit for a personal training business to operate from a home garage. The vote was 7-0 in favor, with all members voting yes: Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, and Chad Walker. The approval includes conditions requiring the business to operate according to submitted plans, limit training sessions to two clients per session during Monday through Saturday hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., comply with local noise ordinances, conduct all activity within the garage, obtain necessary permits before beginning operations, and become null and void if the applicant no longer resides at the location. **Approval of Conditional Use to Increase Childcare Capacity at Southern Hills Methodist Church** [timestamp: 00:34:12] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Chad Needham. The board unanimously approved a conditional use permit to increase childcare capacity from 158 to 318 children. The vote was 7-0 in favor. Conditions include operating according to submitted plans, obtaining necessary permits before commencing operations, limiting hours to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., capping capacity at 318 children, providing a fenced and screened play area with minimum 25 square feet per child, and maintaining full licensing compliance with Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services requirements. **Approval of Variance to Reduce Setback for Deck at 200 Race St.** [timestamp: 01:16:32] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Raquel Carter. The board approved a variance to reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for a deck. The vote was 6-1, with Branden Gross voting against. Those voting in favor were Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, and Chad Walker. **Continuance of Conditional Use Application for Plant Nursery at 901 Old Todds Rd.** [timestamp: 01:36:39] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Harry Clarke. The board unanimously postponed the conditional use application for a plant nursery. The vote was 7-0. **Approval of Conditional Use for Plant Nursery at 7524 Old Richmond Rd.** [timestamp: 02:59:57] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Raquel Carter. The board approved a conditional use permit for a plant nursery. The vote was 6-1, with Harry Clarke voting against. Those voting in favor were Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, and Branden Gross. The approval includes extensive conditions regarding operations hours, driveway and parking improvements, landscape screening requirements, stormwater management, lighting specifications, and private sanitary sewer and garbage services. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Support for Deck Variance at 200 Race St.** Lauren Major testified in favor of a variance for a deck at 200 Race St. [timestamp: 01:00:00]. She emphasized community support from the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association and highlighted the project's role in revitalizing a dilapidated neighborhood through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. **Opposition to Plant Nursery at 7524 Old Richmond Rd.** Dr. Lisa N. Gannoe presented extensive legal and factual objections to a plant nursery proposal at 7524 Old Richmond Rd. [timestamp: 02:06:57]. She argued that the property has never met zoning requirements, the greenhouse is non-compliant with regulations, and approving the use would set a harmful precedent. Mary Diane Hanna also opposed the plant nursery proposal, speaking on behalf of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association [timestamp: 02:32:56]. Hanna argued that the application fails to meet zoning requirements, the property is not suitable for agriculture, and noted that a prior conditional use permit for the property was revoked due to non-compliance. ## Contested Items **Approval of variance for 200 Race St. deck** [timestamp: not provided] The Board debated and voted on a variance request for a deck at 200 Race Street. The initial motion approved a lesser variance of 8 feet, but Board members reconsidered during discussion about whether a 4-foot deck would be adequate for the property. After debate centered on the property's unique characteristics, the Board amended the motion to approve the full 5-foot variance instead. The amended motion passed with a 6-1 vote. **Approval of plant nursery at 7524 Old Richmond Rd.** [timestamp: not provided] The application to establish a plant nursery at 7524 Old Richmond Road encountered significant community opposition. Dr. Lisa Gannoe and the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association presented arguments against the proposal, citing the applicant's non-compliance history, legal violations, and concerns about adverse impacts to the area. The opposition also contended that the property had never met zoning requirements for such a use. ## Variance Appeal: PLN-BOA-20-00039: L O P 1 LTD The Board discussed a variance request for L O P 1 LTD to reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for a deck at 200 Race Street. [timestamp: 01:00:00] **Presentation and Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of a lesser variance that would reduce the setback to 8 feet, which would allow for a 4-foot deck projection. This recommendation reflected staff's assessment of the appropriate balance between the variance request and existing setback requirements. **Board Discussion** The Board members—including Lauren Major, Autumn Goderwis, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, and Branden Gross—debated several aspects of the proposal. Key points of discussion included: * The adequacy of a 4-foot deck projection for the property's use * The narrowness of the property and its constraints * The amount of green space available on the site **Outcome** The Board approved the full 5-foot variance as requested by the applicant, rather than the 8-foot compromise recommended by staff. The approval was granted with two conditions attached to the variance. ## Conditional Use Appeal: PLN-BOA-20-00038: DAMON POWELL [timestamp: 00:25:09] The Board considered a conditional use appeal for a home-based personal training business proposed by Damon Powell at 1121 Parliament Way. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Damon Powell, the applicant; Harry Clarke; and Autumn Goderwis. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use application based on staff recommendation. The approval is subject to six conditions that regulate the operation of the business: - Limits on the number of clients - Restrictions on operating hours - Requirement that the business be located within the garage **Details** The conditional use permit allows Powell to operate a personal training business from his residence, with the specific conditions designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood while permitting the home-based business use. ## Conditional Use Appeal: PLN-BOA-20-00040: SOUTHERN HILLS METHODIST CHURCH [timestamp: 00:29:13] The Board considered a conditional use appeal for Southern Hills Methodist Church to increase childcare capacity from 158 to 318 children. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Richard Arnold, Ann Fuqua, Harry Clarke, and Autumn Goderwis. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use request with six conditions imposed on the operation: - Fencing requirements - Licensing requirements - Operational hours restrictions - Additional conditions related to facility management and safety **Approval Details** The approval allows Southern Hills Methodist Church to double its childcare capacity, nearly doubling the number of children served at the facility from the previous limit of 158 to a new maximum of 318. ## Conditional Use Appeal: PLN-BOA-20-00042: DOUG VESCIO [timestamp: 01:36:39] The Board considered a conditional use appeal for a plant nursery proposed at 901 Old Todds Road. Key participants in the discussion included applicant Doug Vescio, Autumn Goderwis, and Branden Gross. The Board determined that the application required additional work before proceeding to a final decision. Specific concerns centered on the site plan, with particular attention needed to storage and landscaping conditions at the proposed facility. Rather than rendering a final decision, the Board postponed the application to allow the applicant adequate time to meet with staff and revise the site plan to address these outstanding issues. This postponement provides an opportunity for Doug Vescio to work with staff to develop modifications that satisfy the Board's concerns regarding storage arrangements and landscaping requirements for the property. **Outcome:** Postponed ## Conditional Use Appeal: PLN-BOA-20-00043: ECTON FARM, LLC [timestamp: 02:59:57] The Board considered a conditional use appeal for Ecton Farm, LLC, regarding a plant nursery operation proposed at 7524 Old Richmond Road. **Key Speakers and Presentations** Doug Martin, Mike Ecton, Dr. Lisa N. Gannoe, Mary Diane Hanna, and Autumn Goderwis participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Conditions Approved** The Board approved the conditional use with nine conditions governing the operation: - Landscaping requirements - Operating hours restrictions - Parking specifications - Stormwater management measures - Additional conditions related to site operations **Concerns Raised** Neighbors opposed the conditional use, citing concerns about the applicant's compliance history with previous permits and regulations. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use appeal for the plant nursery at 7524 Old Richmond Road, subject to the nine conditions listed above. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of conditional use for home-based business (personal training) at 1121 Parliament Way - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of conditional use to increase childcare capacity from 158 to 318 at Southern Hills Methodist Church - **Motion** — passed (6-1): Approval of variance to reduce setback from 10’ to 5’ for deck at 200 Race St. - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Continuance of conditional use application for plant nursery at 901 Old Todds Rd. - **Motion** — passed (6-1): Approval of conditional use for plant nursery at 7524 Old Richmond Rd. --- ## Full transcript Don't be long till summertime is, summertime is through. Miniature golf and Honda's in the, miniature golf and Honda's in the view. When we rode our horse, we got some proof. Every now and then we hear our songs. Every now and then we hear our songs. We've been having fun of summer long Won't be long till summertime is Summertime is through Every now and then we hear our stories We've been having fun all summer long We've been having fun all summer We've been having fun all summer We've been having fun all summer We've been having fun all summer We've been having fun all summer Don't you love her badly? Don't you need her badly? Don't you love her ways? Tell me what you say Don't you love her badly? Want to be her daddy Don't you love her face Don't you love her as she's walking out the door Like she did one thousand times before Don't you love her ways Tell me what you say Don't you love her as she's walking out the door All your love All your love All your love All your love All your love is wrong It's a single lonely song Of a deep blue tree Seven horses seem to be on the mark Yeah, don't you love her Don't you love her as she's walking out the door All your love All your love All your love All your love is gone So sing a lonely song Of a deep blue dream Seven horses sing You'll be on the mark Thank you. The Little Things You Say I know it's got me real And when you say I love you Rave on Oh, well, Rave on It's a crazy feeling And I know it's got me real And I'm so glad That you're revealing Your love for me Rave on Rave on and tell me Tell me Not to be lonely Tell me You love me only, Ray. Well, Ray Vaughn, it's a crazy feeling And I know it's gotten me real And I'm so glad that you're revealing Your love are made Rave on, rave on and tell me, tell me not to be lonely Tell me you love me only, rave on to me Ah, ah, ah, ah Thank you. going to start it oh hey there we go Chad Walker's in perfect timing we're gonna start us up so just as a heads up we'll start recording as soon as we broadcast Sam we're starting it up as well all right you're on the air welcome ladies and gentlemen this is the Board of Adjustment meeting we'll just give a few minutes for our attendees to join into our meeting here today and then we'll proceed forward. So perhaps let me know when I'm ready to go and read the statement. Alright. Do you have it? Yeah, they put it on the Venns Force. Cool. We'll just give a couple more seconds here so that individuals can add in. Is Joan going to be able to make it today? She is on the call. I just promoted her to Pills, but she seems to disappear. Okay. There she is. There we go. Miss Women, you've been promoted. There we go. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, if you would like to proceed, we can start the meeting. Thank you very much. first off I'd like to apologize for I'm able to make it last month I had a unfortunate death in the family which kept me from being able to come to last month's meeting so for those at home who missed seeing me on TV this is your opportunity to make up I'll try to brazzle and dazzle you extra great this month so the first thing I want to do is call to order our agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting on September 14 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic state of Emergency and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing. This meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, in Attorney General Opinion 20-05, in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. So the information to log into Zoom has been published. I believe it's on the Board of Adjustment website for you to access it. And so with that being said, the first thing we'll do is I have signed the minutes approved last month and we need to approve the minutes from the August 10th, 2020 meeting. Those were sent out by staff. Are there any questions on those? Seeing none, then I would request a motion to approve. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the minutes of August. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Mr. Clark seconds. Any discussion on the minutes? Hearing none, then I will put it to a vote. Please raise your hand if you are in favor. Thank you. it's anonymous and I'm going to abstain from that since I was not at the meeting. Next thing I'll do is I will go through the first off we're going to do the swearing in of the witnesses. So the audience at this point we will allow you to be able to talk so we can swear you in. So if you plan on speaking today I just need to take a quick swearing in. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, if you are participating in today's meeting, please go ahead and unmute yourself so that we can swear you in for today's meeting. And Miss Collins, if you would please unmute yourself. And sir, at the time in which we have that presentation, we can come back to this individual. Alright, looks like we got two more. The other individuals are part of our office. Okay, perfect. So we now have all members that are not part of our office unmuted and ready. Alright, well thank you. In that case, what I'll do is I will swear to you if you could please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Say aye. Thank you very much everybody. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be now going through and kind of taking away your ability to speak at this time. We'll bring you back in as the meeting progresses with your specific application or the application that you're interested in discussing today. So today we have, we've got four or five cases today and what I'll do is I will call each case as your case is called if you are either if you are the applicant we'll put you on and then if you are here just to speak in favor or against an application and what we'll do is we'll note those cases in which people want to be heard or in which the case or in which the staff has either recommended less than what you requested or denial, once we know, we'll have those cases heard second. We'll go through the cases in which there is approval and there's nobody in opposition. We'll have those cases heard first. So the first case I will call is a variance appeal. It is PLN BOA 20-39 LOP1 Limited regarding 200 Race Street, and that is number C1 on the first page of our agenda. So is the applicant present? Please raise your hand for how to... There you go. Maybe bring that individual in. Is there anyone else? We're bringing in Lauren Major. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak on behalf of this matter? Sir, I'm seeing none. All right. Perfect. Hey, Lauren, how are you doing? I'm good. How are you? I'm doing okay. The staff has made a recommendation of approval lesser, and you don't have to tell me right exactly this time, but is that something you think you'll be agreeable to when I call your case, or do you want to have a testimony? I would like to give a testimony if that's okay. Yeah, that's no problem. So what I'll do is I'll mark you to be heard. So you'll be the first case to be heard. Okay. Ms. Major, we're going to demote you again. We'll bring you back here shortly. Okay. The next case is on page two. It's D1. It's our conditional use appeals. It's PLNBOA 20-38. Damon Powell, related to 1121 Parliament Way. if the applicant could or his representative could raise his hand there we go is there anyone else we have promoted Damon Powell um Mr. Powell you could unmute yourself there we go is there anyone else here who wants to discuss this application if there's anybody who would like to discuss this application please raise your hand now thank you well Mr. Powell um the staff has recommended approval so you'll your case will be called first We're going to demote you, and then we'll have your case heard. Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to put you back down, and we'll come back to you. And now we're at D2 on page 2. This is PLM VOA 20-40, Southern Hills Methodist Church at 2356 Harrisburg Road. Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Let me promote them now. All right. Mr. Arnold, we're bringing you up. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak on this matter? Mr. Arnold, you could unmute yourself and turn on your camera for us. And, sir, I don't see anyone else who would be interested in this one. Mr. Arnold, we now have you unmuted. I'm going to ask you to start your video now. We're getting there. There we go. All right. This looks good. We can see you. So what we're going to do is the staff has recommended approval. You will be on the expedite docket. Your case will be heard second after Mr. Powell's case. So what we're going to do now is demote you, and then we'll bring you back up in a minute. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. Number 3, D3 on page 2. This is PLNBA 20-42. Doug Vescio? Does that sound right? Vescio. Alright, we're going with Vescio by Mr. Bailey. If the applicant, this is not a one old Todd's Road. If the applicant is present, can raise his hand for us? I'm going to try to promote Doug. Okay, yeah. Hopefully this is not Doug Martin as well, but with the individual that we just promoted in this case, go ahead and start their video and unmute themselves. With the individual who is interested in talking about property. I think he's unmuted. Now he's got to get the video going. I think I'm unmuted. Yeah, you can turn on your video for us. Okay. There you go. Perfect. Okay. Thank you, sir. And you are the applicant? Yes, sir. And let's see here. I thought, my understanding is, we thought we had a member of the public who wanted to speak. If they could raise their hand if they are on the phone call so we can promote them. Okay, well, my understanding is we were going to have a member of the public. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to mark this as a case to be heard. and if that person is able to connect then it will be a herd case is this the right one? Oh no, it's a decked farm Yes sir. Okay, never mind this is a different agricultural nursery. Okay, never mind good news for you. It looks like there is nobody who wants to talk on this the staff did recommend approval of the conditional use and so what we'll do is we'll have this case listed as on the expedited docket. You'll be case number three. And so what we're going to do is we're going to go ahead and demote you, Doug, and we'll bring you back up hopefully in the next 20 minutes. So just stay on? Yeah, you sit tight. What we're going to do is we're going to take you from being able to speak anymore, and then we call your case, we'll put you back on camera, and then we'll have your case heard. Okay, thank you. Thank you. okay so now i am moving on to number d4 which is listed on page three this is plmboa 20-43 hecton farm llc regarding 7524 old richmond road if the applicant is present please raise your hand for us. Sir, I'm now promoting Doug Martin. Okay. Mr. Martin, are you there? If you could unmute yourself and turn on your camera, Doug. There he is. Hi, Mr. Martin. Can you say hi to us just real quick so that we make sure that you're coming? Hey, buddy. Hey. Mr. Ecton with me here as well. Thank you very much, Doug. Okay, now, this one, we were informed a member of the public wanted to give a presentation in opposition. Yes. There we go. That individual has been allowed to talk. Individual, I didn't go ahead. Lisa? Yes. This is Lisa Gonneau at 7525 Old Richmond Road. Hello, Dr. Gonneau. How are you doing today? I'm great. So what we're going to do is we're going to have this case listed as to be heard. We'll call the case up. Can you see and get your camera rolling for us? Oh, that's right. Never mind. I apologize. I forgot about that. Yes. So and did she provide you guys with a copy of her materials? Yes. Okay. Perfect. So what we'll do is, Doug and Lisa, So once your case is up, we'll put you guys back on. As a member of the public, I forgot you did not turn on the video camera, but we will have your materials before us. Have those materials been provided to you, Mr. Martin? Yeah, they've been provided by the Google Drive. Okay, so Doug has a copy of that. He requested access earlier. Okay, perfect. All right. Chairman Gross? Yes, ma'am? I had requested of Autumn that after I make my points that my written notes can be entered into the record. Yes. Yeah, we have that material. That's correct. Yeah. Once you do your presentation, we can have that entered into the record as part of your... Well, I mean, the notes that I'm going to speak on today have not been submitted. I submitted a letter, but I would also like my speaking points to be submitted after I speak. for those to be submitted into the record we would need to have those emailed to staff well i i made i made autumn aware that i can email them to her right now that would be uh if you could email them to the planning mailbox as well that would be great and then this and then your your testimony is part of the record correct so if you're essentially reading off the notes or summarizing the notes in your testimony that will be part of record as part of your verbal presentation. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. So with that being said, we will now demote you two and we will go and start over at the beginning of the docket. So the first case that was not contested is I believe D1, Mr. Powell's case. Sir, before we continue, we do have a mobile number that I called in. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to identify that person. Please do. We have a caller that has reached out to this meeting at number 785-756. If you could go ahead and unmute yourself and give us the heads up of who you are, we can get you added to this meeting and make sure that you are here for the proper case. Number 785-756. It may not be a mobile number as much as maybe a different kind of device. Yes. I'm asking to unmute. We'll see if that works through. There we go. Hello. Could you tell us what case you're here for today so that we can get you renamed and brought in under that case? I'm sorry. You may have been talking to me. I am not getting a very good sound. Oh, yes, I am talking to you, ma'am. Could you identify yourself and tell us what case you're here for today? I'm Mary Diane Hanna. I'm president of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. And it's with regard to the potential greenhouse. Okay, great. So that case is docketed to be heard. It's going to be the last case heard. So just sit tight. And then when it's time for the public to give testimony, we'll allow you to talk at that point. Okay. And is that going to be, I mean, I know you have no idea, but like an hour or two hours? Three hours or what? Well, once, yeah, we have no idea. I would say within the hour you guys should be up, but it really depends on how long the case is between you and your, now and your case goes, but I try to make them as expedited as we can during the due process rules. Okay. I'm going to try to, is it okay to ask you the code and the password again? Because I did it on my phone and I am barely able to hear you. Yes, ma'am. It is located on the agenda. I could read it out to you now if you need it. It's also on our website. If you wouldn't mind reading it out, that would be very helpful and I'm sorry to bother you. This Zoom webinar ID is 914-6125-1816. and then the password is 937603. Thank you very much. You're welcome. We're going to vote you now and get back to the other. Okay, great. Thanks. Okay, so I'm going to call conditional use appeal PLM BOA 20-38 Damon Pound regarding 1121 Parliament Way. We will promote you now Mr. Powell if you could turn your camera back on in a second. Mr. Chair I will note that you all should have received I think one letter regarding this case that should have been in the Google Drive for your review. Thank you very much. Did everyone get an opportunity to look at that letter? All right thank you. So Mr. Powell it looks like the staff has recommended approval based upon the reasons given and then also with the six recommendations recommended conditions have you seen those six recommended conditions i have thank you sir i mean did you agree to comply with those conditions yes sir no problem thank you very much um so at this point what i'm going to do mr powell i'm going to open up to the board in case anyone on the board has any questions for you or for the staff regarding your application. So take your way, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Powell, this is Mr. Clark. And the letter seems to indicate that there was some concern about traffic and parking. Your application indicates that there will only be one person or two people at the most. And so could you talk about that just a minute to give us some idea about the parking and traffic that might be generated? Yeah, no problem. Well, the street is kind of narrow. Our houses are kind of close together. So if I have too many people in my garage at a time, then it does take up spaces, and I have realized that. So that's why I would only do one or two people at a time. All right, good. Thank you. So you can control that parking each time then? Oh, yeah, for sure. I just spread out. like when people come I don't allow people to come until you know whoever's in there has already left all right thank you Mr. Powell any other questions for Mr. Powell all right I see no hands up from the board at this point I would entertain a motion from a member Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 20-38, Damon Powell's request for a conditional use for a home-based business, personal training in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1121 Parliament Way, based on the staff's recommendation and the six conditions listed. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Looks like Mr. Glover said it first, so we'll mark Mr. Glover as seconding the motion. Any discussion amongst the board members before we vote? Okay, hearing none, I'll put it to a vote. If you could, please raise your hand for the record and say aye if you are in favor. Aye. It is unanimous. And, sir, if you'll give just a few seconds so that our members over in the chambers can just enter that in. Oh, so keep our hands up. Oh, if you can say it's unanimous, it's just, they'll be tapping through. Okay. Got you. Are we good, Autumn? So what we may want to do, Autumn, is after a vote, you just give me a thumbs up. I did. I'll see it in the corner, and I'll know that you guys have everything you need. Thank you, Mr. Powell. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Powell, we'll be devoting you now. We're moving to our next game. So the next case is the Southern Hills case. That is PLN BOA 20-40 Southern Hills Methodist Church at 2356 Harrodsburg Road, which is D2 on page 2. If we could promote Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold. Hello. okay we can see you can you hear us i think you're muted okay can you hear me now yes sir we can thank you um okay so first off if you could identify yourself and your association with the church I am Richard Arnold, the business administrator for Southern Hills. And to my right is Ann Fuquay, the director of Southern Hills Early Childhood Program. Thank you very much. And you guys are authorized to speak on behalf of the church today? Yes, we are. Appreciate that. The staff has recommended approval, and it is subject to six conditions. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? Yes, we have. And are you agreeable to abide by those commissions? Yes, we are agreeable and we are abiding by them. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. So what I'm going to do now is I will open it up to the board and ask if any members of the board have any questions for the church at this time. Okay, I see. Oh, Mr. Clark? Yes, Mr. Arnold, I have some questions about playground space. I know that I feel pretty sure that your playground space there does not provide the required square footage, but I also am relatively sure that all those kids are not going to be out there at the same time. Could you address that for me, please, sir? we basically have two playgrounds behind the church and one is for our smaller kids and one is for the older two-year-olds and up two-year-olds and they only go out per age and everybody's scheduled twice and so so they do go out there we do have a fairly large area I think it's, what, 30, 35 foot wide by, it's probably 3,000 square feet. So when we have a couple classrooms out there, we meet the minimum requirements. I'm pretty positive about that. And we also have a green area on the other side of the church, which we do have a lot of kids play in. and of course we're we're adjacent to Southland Park too so yeah it's not fenced in not fenced in though what is it right it is fenced in the playground behind the church that playground is but the other space is not right okay I just wanted to bring that up because if we approve this then we we're proving that we understand that it will be used only by part of the enrollment each time. So I think it's important that we understand that. And so I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you, sir. There is a rotating schedule of classes going in and out of the playground so that we don't have everybody out there all at one time. You'd need almost 8,000 feet, square feet to do 318 students at a time. So I just wanted to bring that up to make it clear to everyone. Appreciate that. would you address mr. Clark's point about the spacing and the requirements and that about that being met that requirement is actually a mirror of a requirement that the state has so that is another entity that will be ensuring that that amount of space is provided that is part of the state licensure process. So that's not just on us that the 25 square feet per child be available. And so I think the point is that they have to meet that requirement even if they have additional space that may not be fenced in? Correct, yes. They have to have 25 square feet per child fenced in, yes. Period. Yes. So even if they were to occasionally go out and play four square in the parking lot, that would not count towards that space correct yeah that help you mr clark yes sir all right thank you very much any other questions for uh the applicant okay hearing none then i will entertain a motion mr chair i move we approve uh pln boa 20-40 southern hills methodist church request for conditional use to increase the number of children in an existing child care center from 158 to 318 at a split zone property in single family residence professional office zones on property located at 2356 Harrodsburg Road for the reasons itemized in the staff report and subject to the six conditions listed therein. Thank you Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? Mr. Needham you could say second. Second. Thank you sir. So I have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Well hearing none then I will put it to a vote. If you are in favor please raise your hand and Autumn will let us know when they've marked our... I'm showing it as unanimous. All right, we're good. Thank you very much for your time today, and good luck with your project. We're going to go ahead and demote you now. Thank you. Appreciate it. okay so next we're going to call up is case number three on page two plnboa 20-42 doug uh how vesco vesco there we go um we're going to promote uh the applicant who was here earlier so if you could go ahead there we go your camera's on you're looking good um he's muted you may need to unmute yourself and doug was one of our members who went through our training last week so he's got this down and yeah now we it's a big help too thank you i'm glad that uh you guys and gals do that that was a huge help okay so we've got you your camera's working your sound is working So this is related to 901 Old Todd's Road. The staff has recommended approval of your conditional use permit. That approval is based upon four recommendations. Have you seen those recommendations? No, sir. It could have been mailed to you with the notice. Let me pull them up here. Yeah. Okay, shall be conducted in accordance with the submittal per application. Okay, any existing accessory structure will be removed. that we shall return to the board if any additions are desired in the future all necessary permits and all material should be stored inside okay can we talk about those yeah we can let's see here but if you want to have testimony what I'll do then is we will mark this one to be heard and we will put you back in line if you want to discuss any of those if you are agreeable to those as they read then what we will do is we will go ahead and move on and have your case heard but if you want time to look at them and then ask questions etc then what we'll do is We'll bring you back up in a few minutes after we missed Morgan's case. A couple clarifications, so I'll just wait. Okay, that sounds great, Doug. So what we'll do is we should be back to you, I'd say, in the next 10 minutes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So we'll work that one in. I think we're now back to the front page. Yes, sir. Okay, so that brings us to the cases in which the applicant or the public wanted to have a moment to give us their testimony. So what we'll do then is I will call case C1, which is on the first page. This is PLM beer way 20-39 LOP1 LTD regarding 200 Race Street. Ms. Morgan, there you are. If you could unmute yourself. There you go. I'm speaking to you. I'm sorry. Oh, you're fine. My name is Lauren Major, and I'm going to be representing LLP1 LTD for this property at 200 Grace Street. We are proposing permission for a deck addition that projects five feet from the side yard as a residential remodeling project. This project is being funded by loan through the Affordable Housing Fund with hopes of improving the dilapidated neighborhoods of Lexington and providing residents with the best housing that we possibly can with the tools that we have. When we obtained this property, it was nearly falling down. We have made significant efforts in restoring the house with its original bones, as we take pride in preserving the overall character and historic attributes of the house, and are trying to find every way to continue to improve this property for the owners to come. I firmly believe that this deck will bring positive interaction, liveliness, and a generally greater curb appeal to a neighborhood that is lacking in those areas. the addition of the 7 by 24 deck will still leave ample space between the residential property lines in the public right-of-way the suggestion of reducing the span of the deck to better meet requirements would be possible however would significantly reduce the functionality of the deck and would cancel out the possibility for the deck to be used as a space to gather and connect its neighbors the William Wells Brown neighborhood Association is in support of this proposal as it would improve the function of the individual house as well as the general neighborhood feel. If I could share that document, that would be great. Is that okay? Okay. Can you see my screen? Yeah. Okay. It won't let me zoom in. Okay. So as this letter says, it says, this letter comes on behalf of the officers and members of the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association. We represent the views and the desires of the East End community, which include the referenced address as it falls within our boundaries. The association is appealing to the Board of Adjustments to accept the appeal presented by LOP1 LTD. We have no objection to the new deck and invite such a change. It is our desire that this letter is taken into consideration and a variance to reduce the required setback for a projection into the side street yard from 10 foot to 5 foot in order to construct a new deck within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone is granted. This is regards from the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association. This just shows the community support that we have from various organizations. I have seen firsthand the need of the people to the need of the people living in these conditions. Coming from a much different background, I strive to bring hope to these less fortunate areas in every way that I possibly can. People living on the east end should be given the same sorts of amenities that other areas are fortunate enough to have, even if it is as simple as one deck addition and a singular house on one street. The entire goal of the redevelopment plan is to provide a safer, healthier environment for those inhabitants, and this decadition has the potential to encourage community interaction and hope for growth. We have all the tools to provide this hope for at least one property in this neighborhood, which could spark hope for countless other individuals and families in the area. Every step in the direction of growth and development in this neighborhood is a step in the right direction. While given the chance to update and rejuvenate its historically dilapidated neighborhood, I strongly urge you to approve this appeal and allow for the decadition to be completed as proposed. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Major. What I will do now is I will let Autumn tell us about this project and the staff's position on this project. And if you could, for the members, if you could remind us if and why this application may be a little bit different than the ones we heard previously in the same area. I know that there was a corner lot. I can't recall the street, but I think we had more issues with the site dimensions for traffic. And it appears to me that this isn't the same concern. So if you could just remind us a little bit about that case so we don't get confused on the differences, it would help. I think the case that you're referring to was at the corner of North MLK and 7th Street. In that case, the deck was projecting not only into the side yard, but into the front yard, and it was considerably closer to the street. So there was a much larger concern regarding traffic at that location. in this situation we're dealing with a non-conforming side street side yard which is sort of where the problem is generated and I'll go ahead and share my screen real quick with you and we'll go through this this application briefly. Just real quickly I'm just so everyone knows the the site distance issues we had at the Martin Luther King and 7th Street are not present with this plan. That is correct. Okay, so just don't let it trip you up when you're thinking through it. Right, this is a different scenario for sure. So this is a request for a variance to reduce the required setback for a projection into a side street side yard from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a new deck. So the property is located at the corner of Ray Street and East 2nd Street. So you can see here, you can tell by looking at it that it has a non-conforming side yard over here but this side yard is also non-conforming the required side street side yard here would be 20 feet um by the ordinance so this is a non-conforming side street side yard of 12 feet so in this instance the the projection calculation is based on the required side street side yard which as a projection can project into a side street side yard 50 percent of that required yard so in this instance it would be only it would have to be 10 feet from the property line in order to meet that 50 of the required 20 foot setback which in practically in this instance would allow someone to build a projection that projected two feet into the side yard in order to still have the 10 foot remainder so here's the site plan that the applicant submitted so you can see that we have the 12 foot side yard here and there proposing to project into that seven feet I also have a rendering here. So the reason that we have recommended a lesser variance is simply because there was not any special circumstances outlined in this application. The area where the deck is proposed is relatively flat, and there's not a major change in elevation from the floor level of the house to the ground there. So we believe that a stoop and patio would offer a similar level of outdoor engagement for the applicant. We certainly don't believe that not having a deck here makes their yard unusable or would prohibit neighborhood interaction because there are other options like an at-grade patio and stoop. So we're recommending a four-foot projection, which would be a variance to allow the projection into the side street side yard from a 10-foot setback to an 8-foot setback. that would allow them to have a four foot projection allowing for a stoop that that would have a few steps down because a project a stoop does count as a projection and we want to be sure that there is enough room for them to have have that stoop and then to have an at-grade patio or they could have a four foot deck which would be narrower than what they're requesting um so that gives them a couple of options there also is space at the rear of the property where an outdoor space could be utilized however we understand that it's likely that at some point a parking space will be put back there. So we understand the applicants desire to put their outdoor usable space in the side street side yard. So we have made this recommendation as sort of a compromise to what is existing or what is proposed and what would be allowed by the zoning ordinance. Again going back to that that non-conforming side street side yard really being kind of at the crux of the issue. Thank you Autumn. Is there anything else you wanted to say Autumn? I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, appreciate it. So at this point I will open it up to... Go back to any other slide or stop. Yeah, let's just go back and flip back and we'll see. Yeah, that's good. Let's leave it on this one for now. At this point I'll open it up to the board members if they have any questions for the applicant or for the staff this time? Mr. Glover? Oh that's okay, sorry. The way the screen's working, Hal speaks in the form so I can see all you guys at once. Okay. I'm going to ask you regarding, I was looking on the, you could see it better on the satellite view, but that retaining wall, the concrete retaining wall that's there, that's kind of showing the two levels of the yard. Do we know the distance? So that is actually at the property line. So here you can see the pink line, that's where that retaining wall is. So there is a bit of grass between the retaining wall and the sidewalk, I believe. The 12 feet that we talked about measured from the house to the property line is this, and then the retaining wall is at that property line. So we're not taking into consideration that other green space? Correct. Between the sidewalk and the... And how wide is that green space? Do we know? I'm not sure. It appears this is straight away. This appears to be about the same width as the sidewalk, which would typically be three or four feet. Yeah, it looks like the way this right-of-way is done, it goes pavement, sidewalk, then green space. Yeah. Yeah. So Autumn. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Clark. Tommy, you wanted to ask something before. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, sure. I did. Thank you. And either Autumn or Ms. Major can answer this. My question is, well, maybe I should ask Autumn first. according to the staff's recommendation of an eight foot setback, am I reading this correctly that that would allow for a four foot deck, four foot wide deck? That is correct. The eight foot setback would allow for a four foot projection. And the applicant... Projection is a better word. I wouldn't call it deck at four feet. Okay. But the plan is to build a deck. And it's my experience and my understanding that a four foot deck is, is too small to, to put a chair down, especially at an angle and for somebody else to pass by. So I think that, I think, I think four feet is, is too small. I'm inclined to, to grant a larger, a smaller setback actually to allow them to build a wider deck. just because my experience is that a deck that's a seven to one deck is probably too too long and narrow to be effectively useful for them to use for this for this house i would recommend as a compromise a six and a half foot setback which would give them a five and a half foot wide deck i have an half by 28 seems to be a little more reasonable to me that's my question thank you well i guess what we'll do is we'll take these in turn we'll start with autumn and get the staffs crew perspective on it and then we'll let uh miss major uh chime in i think that that our recommendation was based primarily on on the thought that in lieu of a deck they would most likely opt to choose a stupid at grade patio which I think that the reasoning behind that for us was that a stoop and patio would offer a similar level of outdoor engagement and useful space as a deck, with the only difference being that it's not at an elevated, slightly elevated deck space versus an at-grade patio, that those would be sort of equivalents. But I think that Ms. Major maybe can get into why they would prefer the deck over the patio. And if the board were inclined to make such a recommendation, that would be within your purview. And we would just need to probably make some changes to the reasons and conditions. Yes, I was going to say, Ms. Jones is taking notes for us right now, just in case. Autumn, is it my understanding that they would need permission for a grade level patio as well? But the fact that it's a deck or a raised structure would make no difference or does it make a difference? A patio would not be considered a projection. It would have to meet the requirement of paving that limits the maximum amount of private walkway in a side street side yard. But beyond that, that would be the major requirement. Yeah, I think we need to make sure that they can't turn into a parking space. That's correct. It has to be spaced. And I mean, the retaining wall kind of takes care of that in this instance, that it would not be something that could be driven onto. Private walkways have to be separated from vehicular use areas so that they cannot be used as parking areas. May I chime in here? Oh, I'm sorry. Real quickly, Mr. Clark, if we could, I'm going to finish up Tommy's point and let Ms. Major discuss whether or not a deck versus a patio would work. And then at that point, I think we've resolved Mr. Glover's questions. We can move on to Mr. Clark. I apologize, Mr. Clark. I will let you speak. All right. I would just like to second Mr. Glover's suggestion, even to the point of agreeing to the 10 foot by 5 foot as requested on the application. I think a deck is a matter of privacy. I don't think a patio in that neighborhood on that corner would give you the kind of resource that a deck would. And I agree with Mr. Glover that a four foot patio is almost useless. And I don't see much difference between his recommendation of six and a half to an eight foot. But so I'd be I would I would look favorably on recommending that we approve this. But I want to ask Autumn what priorities we set here if we did something like that. And Mr. Clark, real quickly, if I could just make sure everyone's on the same page. The applicant's request is to go from a 10 foot requirement to a five foot requirement. so that she can then build a 28 foot by seven foot deck. And I just want to make sure the record's clear because there's a bunch of single vision numbers that we're all trying to throw in our heads. And yeah. Yeah, that's correct. So, Autumn, my question is, what precedent do we set here? And is there some immediate danger of setting that kind of precedent? it? I think in this instance, I mean, there's always a precedent question, and it just really depends on how the reasons that you approve something are appraised and what conditions were placed on it. We want to be sure that we're doing this because of something that is a certain characteristic of this particular property, and that's one reason that we did not recommend approval of the full variance was because we did not find those special circumstances here, but if you all feel that there are special circumstances that justify this need, then I think that that needs to be part of the reasons for your approval. I think the precedent question is just always there, and we can kind of look at that a few different ways as to whether or not something is a precedent or if it's been specifically keyed to the application. Okay, thank you. Okay, Ms. Major, if you want to be unmuted and let you speak about the patio, two things. Talk about the patio versus the deck. But before then, if you could explain how far off the wall is from the property, the masonry wall, and also how tall that masonry wall is. I do not have those exact numbers with me, but I know that the… good estimated figure just so we can visualize in our heads yes okay that area right there i believe was 12 feet is that correct autumn it's 12 feet from the house to the property line which i believe is where the wall is located on it's on the property line and then after the wall i would say there was approximately four feet until the sidewalk and then another three feet to the road I feel like with all... How tall is that long? It's been a minute since I've been to the actual property myself, but I would say about two feet. Okay. Mr. Chair, would you like me to try to pull up a Google Street View image? Sure, that'd be great. It sounds like it's more of an accessory than it is a fence. If it's only two feet tall. Brandon, it's an elevation and actually you'll see when Autumn it's actually two levels so it's more like a separation of elevation. Yeah, that's part of my discussion. Part of my reasoning is that does it give enough separation between the sidewalk and a deck or is it essentially going to put a deck in there people just walk right up onto the patio from the sidewalk and sit down in their chair versus if it's a deck where it's elevated a few feet above the ground level. And Chad, do you want to say something before Ms. Majors gets back to it? You're muted, sir. i was just going to say you know because it's elevated um you know it doesn't obviously appear now from that street view that you can drive a car uh on onto it and so you know if i'm probably okay with with without the deck um and having you know a paper at grade uh type of patio because of the knee wall and their elevated side yard. That's my opinion. Mr. Glover? Yeah, after listening to Harry, I felt like it was necessary to explain the reason why I wasn't just in favor of approving the application with a five-foot setback rather than the staff's recommendation for an eight foot setback. Because of that wall and because of the fact that the area that's not going to be decked is going to be grass, you've got to get a lawnmower through there and leaving only two feet between that retaining wall and a deck is a pretty small area to push a lawnmower. So that was my consideration. But if you can get a lawnmower through there to, you know, cut grass, then I agree with Harry that a five-foot setback would work. And I think the special condition would be that this is a corner lot. That's one special condition. The other is that the property itself is so very narrow and the, I guess, the aesthetic appeal of building a deck would probably would enhance the look of this property and therefore the property values in the whole neighborhood. um so let me real quickly you are still in favor of the deck it's easiest for me to keep in mind patio or deck we are uh we're not in the purpose we're not in the business of saying what they can build there we're giving we're granting permission for them to i really like that but i think and i think the patio they don't they don't need any permission if they do the patio. That's right. And so we're talking about a deck. If they want to build a patio, they don't need our permission. Okay. So you're still leaning towards approval of an application of some sort. I mean, I'm more inclined to approve the application without the staff's restrictions on the application. Okay. I just want to make sure I'm keeping everything in my head. Let me ask you another question. Since this is a side yard, but it abuts a street, is the fence four foot? Could they put a four foot fence at the behind the knee wall? Yes. So that could enhance the privacy by putting it. Could they do a six foot fence there? They would have to be three feet back from the public right of way and they could have a six foot fence. Okay. I would also note that this being a corner lot would not be considered a special circumstance in this instance because the ordinance is written specifically for a corner lot. Side street side yards only occur where you have a corner situation where there is a side street side yard. And that requirement that the projection cannot be more than 50 percent into that required side street side yard is why we're having to ask for the variance. So having a corner lot, it's not a special circumstance in this instance. How about the how about the narrowness of the lot? I think that that could perhaps be a special circumstance. I'm actually in agreement with where Tommy and Harry are going with it, but I in particular just think that we should be able to take into account the fact that you have that additional green space on the other side of the retaining wall. I, for one, and it may be aesthetic, I'd rather not see more concrete than we have to see as far as we're talking about building a patio. I mean, just to have sidewalk and then more concrete is not necessarily most aesthetically pleasing, but that in itself is not a reason to approve it. But we're really averaging from that retaining wall, but in all reality and in, you know, in visualizing the adjustment or the variance there, all that green space, you know, I would like to account for it. I consider that an extra three or four feet a special circumstance because that's not usual for a corner line to end up that way with the green space on the inside of the sidewalk. I would say that's not something that we see a lot in Lexington. Where are the right away the sidewalk and the green space are flipped in our... Inside the urban... It is common. It's more common. That is very common in that area. Okay. Okay, with all that being said, is there anyone else from the board who has any questions for the applicant? And or I think this may be the first one in which the findings may need to be revised in one of our hearings, in which case somebody who intends on making a motion of some sort would, I guess it'd be helpful to me to figure out if someone plans on making a motion, what that motion is going to be. so that then we can make sure Ms. Major is agreeable to any conditions that are going to be set related to that approval. So let's take this in a little bit. Let me bear with me here. Autumn, real quickly, we could just talk. Okay, the condition, all necessary permits, I mean, that's going to be there no matter what we do. I think that if you were to recommend approval of the variance as requested by the applicant, I would likely add the typical condition that we see that construction be done in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. that's a pretty standard one for when we approve exactly what was requested that way it's you know found by the site i agree completely but but really we're dealing with what i consider the administrative conditions right yeah aside from that um any other conditions would be up to you all um but that's the one that jumps out at me is something that we would want to add Okay, because I don't know which way it's going to go with the vote, but I do know I want to be kind of at least have things online. And then with Mr. Clark and Glover and Carver, so would you think whoever's going to be making the motion, I guess the idea will be you'll approve what the applicant has requested? Is that where you guys are? Do you all think you'll need new findings? No, I know we need different findings, but before I take a recess, I want to kind of get some of these things at least narrowed down so we don't have to be gone for a while and then come back and do more stuff. It's kind of what I'm thinking. So, Mr. Glover? I didn't see any conditions at all in the staff report. Yeah, it's the one that talks about the permits, and then what we would do is we would likely add one related to our standard one. says you're going to develop this as you need your development plan. I call these the more administrative. Brandon, because staff already recommended approval, just with the lesser amount, do we really have different findings? I think we need to probably modify some of the findings. Well, the findings specifically said there do not appear to be special circumstances that justify the need for the variance as requested. nor will strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land. So that sentence, if you're apt to approve it, is no longer true. We wouldn't want to include that. So we would need a different finding, and that's, I believe, where Ms. Godderweiss is going. What's the special circumstance that granting this variance? Right. The good news is that we are an uneven number today, so something's going to happen. So what I want to get to is anyone who is in favor of moving forward with approval, based upon the applicant's original item, then what we need to do is, Ms. Major, real quickly, you had the recommendations for approval with the conditions, number one being all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. Would you unmute yourself ma'am? Yes sir. So that one is a very basic, it's pretty much in all our bill type situations. Then we would have another condition that essentially would say your improvements would be built as submitted with the application plan. It's how you said you're going to do it. The member who may vote to approve may have another condition, but I'm assuming you're okay with at least those two basic conditions. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, ma'am. You can beat yourself back. Okay, at this point, I would say, how do we get whoever wants to make a motion with Ms. Jones to iron out? Typically, it's either done by the way. Or to email you or. Yeah, Mr. Glover, do you want to take the lead or does somebody else want to take the lead from the member's standpoint? I'm sure Mr. Glover wants to take the lead. Well, it sounds like he's volunteering. He's on mute, so he can't deny it. So what I'm going to suggest is I'm going to suggest we take a 10 minute recess, allow time for Mr. Glover and Miss Jones to speak, and then we can come back into session thereafter. So, Autumn, if you could get Miss Jones and Mr. Glover together, I would appreciate it. Yes. Can Mr. Glover email his. She's here. Yes. Yeah. Can can we we'll do this over email? If you can have Mr. Glover email both me and Miss Jones. Yeah. I'd say I'd suggest that you send me something. OK. We did this once before several several months ago. OK. And I'll take a look at it and see what it looks like. All right, so what I'm going to do, I don't have a gavel, but I'll knuckle in to recess for 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you for this portion of... We've got all of our board members back. Yes, sir, we do. And the applicant is here and staff is here. Okay, in that case, I think we're back in. Session. Thank you for your patience. Sometimes we've got to, underneath the current circumstances, it takes us a little bit more time to work through where people are located in different locations. Take that off. That'd be silly. And so at this point, I think we've now heard all the testimony that we need. Is anyone else? I'm going to close that part. Does anyone have any questions for anyone? before I ask if there's any motions to be made from the members of the board. Okay, I see no hands. At this point, I will entertain a motion from a board member. Keep in mind that after we make and second the motion, we can still have discussion about it as to how to modify it if necessary and things like that. So just keep that in mind. And Mr. Glover, we could always, before we make the motion, we could have a discussion amongst ourselves about those points. Yeah, and we can, or we can do it after the motion. If we need to modify the motion, we certainly can as well. All right. In that case, I don't care how the board wants to proceed. So. Well, let me make a motion and we'll see if that draws any comments. I move that we approve PLNBOA 20-39 LOP1 Limited's request for a variance to reduce the required setback for a projection into a side street yard from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a new deck within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 200 Race Street. based upon the testimony that we've heard today, the discussion among the board members that we have heard and may continue to hear, and based on the amount of green space in the side yard that's within the concrete knee wall shown on the plan, based on the narrowness of the lot, and also based on the fact that funding is coming from the Affordable Housing Fund, which would enhance which is intended to enhance lexington's effort to add affordable housing and condition the condition is that the construction be conducted based on the site plan filed with the application that's number one and number two that all permits all proper permits be obtained from the division of planning and building inspection prior to commencing the approved construction. All necessary permits and certificate of occupancy be obtained from the divisions of planning and building inspection prior to commencement of construction. Second the motion. Okay so we have a first and second. Autumn I'll let you speak in a second Autumn. I want to go to Miss Major real quick if we can unmute her. Miss Major you heard the two conditions that were read into the record. are you agreeable to abide by those before we go forward? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you very much. I want to mute you again. I'm going to go back to the staff. Autumn had her hand up. Ms. Jones and I just spoke about the portion of Mr. Glover's reasoning that this be based on who is funding the project or who is in charge of the project. And we're not real comfortable with tying that to a reason for approval. And Autumn, I will say I agree with that. I was going to make that comment during our discussions that I feel more comfortable not with where the funding source is or who the end user is. I would feel more comfortable by the fact that the right of way happens to be flipped in this area. I think that the knee wall creates an elevation distance that is not as prone with side streets and some other more characteristics of the land itself versus the user or the funder. So that's my only comment to your findings of facts, Mr. Glover. Okay. I'm not uncomfortable with striking that finding from the motion. I think we should. And Harry is muted. Harry, you're muted. that was my suggestion and it's it i thought it was a good point but it's certainly understandable why it would not be appropriate okay so at this point we're still an open discussion on the motion that is pending before us which this point has been amended to revise the finding of fact related to the housing fund any other comments from or discussion from the members if not I'll call a vote okay I see none at this point we have a motion on the floor all those in favor please raise your hand and keep them raised okay so it looks like we've got Mr. Clark, Ms. Whitman, Glover, Walker, Needham, Needham, and Carter all vote in favor. Thank you very much. I'm going to vote opposed. And with that your application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Miss Major, we'll be demoting you now and we'll be bringing on the next application. Mr. Doug, we're gonna bring you back in at this time. Okay, now we are at... this is on page 2, D3 PLNBOA 20-42 related 901 Old Todd's Road. Thank you Doug, if you could unmute yourself. And I am hoping that you've read the conditions and you're comfortable with them. Well, not really. I've read them, but first I want to say I had no idea what you guys did, so I got a better appreciation of y'all go home and have a beverage of your choice at the end of the day, because that's a lot of work you guys do. Gee, my days. Thank you. So you're welcome, Doug. Let's go through these. Let me pull them up here. I had them up here, and I've lost them. Let me grab it. That was sent Friday. Doug, I gave you almost an hour. I'm ready for you. I fell asleep. No, I was doing something else. Hold on. I had them up here, and I lost them. Hold on. Would you like me to pull up the conditions? Yes, that'd be great. We can tear, sweep them. to see okay that's great oh yeah okay so we have them up on the screen on screen share so I would say and real realistically this is really going to be a little bit between you caught saying your concerns autumn will tell us why she recommended from the staff's position and so we'll just kind of go through them I will tell you some of these are standard um so we'll start with number one are you comfortable with number one uh the building should be conducted of course the smithel application proposed I can't see all that let me move this or existing essentially removed yeah the only i've got a small shed back there that we're keeping things in especially while we're building this that we'd already destroyed our other buildings and we took out the ones that mr jarman had said that we needed to take out so there's a small um well there's two things there's two conax buildings i don't think that's pertinent to this but there's an existing building down there that we store some light duty equipment uh and i would hate to remove that um i don't know if that's what you're talking about autumn or not my question would be whether or not those buildings were um accounted for in the original 5,340 square feet of unsafe accessory buildings that no that that wasn't part of the I thought I sent pictures earlier when we did this years ago, but there was some lean-tos that pretty much extended out. It wasn't quite – there was actually a building, an office with a door on it. I don't know if you call it an office. It was more of a chicken coop or something. And then there was a wood barn, for lack of a better – it probably was not more than 1,000 square feet that was behind the existing structure. so we've uh i don't know if i've got pictures of those but we we took all those out to get to that 50 well right at 5 000 i think or 5200 square feet or so it wasn't quite 5 500 53 40 is the number that i have right i think our recommendation would still be that this be the only accessory structure um because you are asking for the additional square footage um but that is something that the board could potentially change in their recommendation. And I'm probably, okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to talk over you. This has got a delay on it. I'm assuming that we are eventually going to tear that down because there's no, right now it adds a little bit of, you know, protection from the rain and everything else. We just really store some wood and things like that in there. Well, and let me real quickly, Autumn, you can chime in if I'm scratching, because I think it says the existing structures shall be removed, but it does not say exactly. I think it's removed as part of the project. And so it could be that if you are storing materials there while you are constructing the new building, and then that accessory comes down, you know, essentially when you're getting the CEO for the new building, that probably would work. Is that what you're saying, Doug? Well, what I was saying is I eventually was going to take it down. I wasn't going to do it after this was over. We might have to because I don't have access, but we've taken down over 5,000 square feet of what I call junk and lean-tos and unsafe buildings. In fact, there was a – I could probably pull a picture of it somewhere. Well, let's do this. Let's go on. We'll mark that as a question mark. Because, honestly, it could be at the end of the day, if we get through your list, that I say let's go ahead and postpone this until next month and let you and Otto sit down with more detail and say, no, we're comfortable with this, we're not comfortable with this, rather than us essentially putting the staff on the spot on particulars of, you know, this building needs to stay. and they may not know what exactly. Yeah, I don't think that's going to be a game changer for me, but the one, probably the biggest one I have, well, two, I can't, I don't know if I can promise you that I'm, the intent for me to get this building is to store my equipment and get as much of it as I can. We've got almost two acres here, and when you say store all the equipment and materials inside, there's no way I could put everything inside this uh 5,000 or 6,000 square foot building I'm just being honest with you I couldn't get the trailers and trucks uh and usually our equipment is on a you know we're out working uh we've our intent is to keep the equipment out on the job sites as much as we can but if if we needed to put every single piece of equipment, including trucks and material, I would have to have a place as big as this lot. That's not, that's not, I would be lying and being just, just honest if I say I just want to get it all in there. There's just, that's not possible. But our intent is to get everything we can for, really for safety inside, inside that building. Yeah. So, so let me, real quickly. So what you're saying is you need possibly more space than the new building and the concrete storage area that exists to store all your equipment and material. Yeah we could, you know, if you're talking about, I'm trying to categorize equipment, if you're talking about trucks. I don't think we would include vehicles as equipment. I think we're looking more towards, essentially the goal of this condition would be to kind of clean up the site, which I think is your intent in developing this building, is to get as much as you can put inside. So I don't think that that vehicles would be considered what we would consider materials or equipment. What about trailers? If we're going to want to clarify that in this condition, then we could do that. Okay. What about trailers? Because I can't get all those trailers. We're hoping to sell some of these trailers. We've got more than we need. But some of that stuff we've got. But like my pipe, we store some pipe. Usually it's excess. We're actually in the process of getting rid of, if you just looked at it before, we had way more. we're trying to there's some metal pipe would probably be something we would they would want stored in these areas yes in the building the materials i think that would be materials and and doug that's why i'm saying it could it may be beneficial um since it appears that some of these conditions you may have just been able to have the opportunity to look at today that for us to maybe i mean you know unless you plan on doing construction in the next 30 days it may be beneficial to sit down with staff and say okay i've looked at this storage issue but here's the deal i've got pipe and my pipe is 100 feet long and i just couldn't store it there or and work through some of those what your concerns are on their language um rather than us going through and and and and us working through your entire business at this site well I can I can meet with them we've already discussed that uh I'm just saying if part of this of this condition is that we get all of our pipe and some things inside that with our equipment then I have to say now I can't do it there I'd be lying I there's just not enough room I don't and I'm telling you I don't like to have pipe outside but there's times that we have it stored in between jobs or we use it between jobs but it's just not possible for me to get everything in that side of that building and if I haven't I'll just go back to the 5,500 square foot and leave things as they are my intent was to get all I could in there but it sounds like I'm not going to be able to do that. Well and the intent is not to set you up for failure which is why I think that it may behoove you to have another conversation with staff and explain now that you've seen some of these conditions they want to place on it and try to work something out with other modifications or some other ways before it if you still think you want to move forward the project before we go through and possibly not vote to to approve your application as you want to proceed Brandon real quick just for clarification purposes the condition says inside the proposed storage building or on the concrete storage area so that concrete storage area is outside of the building correct that's correct and I believe I guess that's where you store I don't know mulch and stuff maybe well we're actually getting rid of that that was scared we tipped we used to use that for topsoil and you know the odds and ends the problem with that actually we have a guy today is getting that out of there we that's a that's a spot on this lot where the kids that I say the kids the kids the neighborhood get up on it they tear it down and get on it and that's not an area that I would want to our long-term plans is that there's a fence that splits the lot in the back we're going to move it back a little bit and probably lose that but if we don't fence the very back end and we try to store anything we don't store inside our fence we get destroyed and i can't say this for certain doug i'm just the staff may disagree but if you are removing that concrete storage area there may be an opportunity to put another area but that would be where you put your pipe. You know, I'll give you an example of an area where you can put your pipe. But that's the reason I think that if you're still, what we have in front of us is your new building, there's an office, there's a shed, and there's a concrete storage area. And the staff's conditions more or less say put all your equipment and materials either in that new building or on this concrete path area and not have it other locations. So it could be you just need to sit down and not have your guy tear that concrete pad out and use that to store some of the materials, even if it's not topsoil or something else. I don't know. But my thing is the farther we put things in the back, we don't even store a truck or anything back there because it gets destroyed. The people in the neighborhood get on it and they rip the hydraulic lines, they get on the equipment. So So to me, that concrete storage pad for dirt and mulch and stuff, for me to put pipe, they used to take our pipe and break it all over the back. We just can't put anything back there that far without it. I think the staff had thought you were going to be using that concrete pad based upon the conditions. So here's my recommendation, having been on this board for a while. My recommendation is we postpone this today until next month. give you an opportunity to sit down with the staff and say this is what I want to do this is how my plan is because the plan attached to your application has that concrete storage area still in existence so my guess is they thought that was going to survive as part of your development um so unless there's a reason that you that 30 days you cannot wait 30 days my recommendation as the chair for you to get closer to what you may want to do would be for us to do a postponement next month. Well, but I can't go back to the original approval of 5500 and go on with whatever I want to do. Is that correct? That is correct. You are approved from the letter from Jimmy previously that you would take down 5340 square feet of accessory buildings and you could rebuild that. So right, well you can do that without any of these conditions. Because right now and just hang with me because I appreciate your time, but I waited an hour. The other condition, I believe, is to put a double barrier, landscape barrier, and I was going to show you, I mean, we've got trees and shrubs and fences lined up all over the perimeter, and if you're asking me to put a double landscape all the way around my property that adds another thousands and narrows down the lot, the originally when they asked for an offset i was asked to call ku that was the only easement restriction they needed seven and a half feet i was willing to give them up to 10 feet because they had seven and a half feet on both sides of the property and so i was willing to give 10 feet and now where it sounds like you're asking me to put a double row of land state Your options are a double row or a fence wall or earth mount are your options. But there's already a fence there. Well, sometimes those things that exist can sometimes be used to comply with this requirement. So if you already have trees off center every 40 feet that you don't need to put a new tree in, it's already there. And that's why I'm saying it may behoove you to work through some of these details with the stack. Because if you already have a six-foot fence that's wooden, that runs around the entire perimeter, then that would probably comply with number two, and you wouldn't need number one, which is the doublehead. okay i another month now then i'm back to where i'm at again uh i'll consider it uh you say who do i need to talk with because it sounds like i'm just better off just getting less of a building and not having to deal with all this other stuff and spend money and just leave my stuff out that was the whole point but i'm getting what you would do is you would ask you would ask me for a postponement continuance a continuance i apologize you're right a continuance that would be heard next month and then in the meantime that would give you 30 days to figure out whether you want to move forward with this portion or if you're dissatisfied with the status quo that's already been approved i'm thinking i would i'm recommending you take that that 30 days and talk with staff about these details because it could be what exactly you want you may be able to make it work with the staff and what you're proposing who is the staff just my staff or your staff that would be on of who in your office is taking a lead on this one that would be me i think what we would we would want to see would be an updated site plan that showed that that concrete area was no longer going to be there and and perhaps a little bit clearer um site plan showing where you would have your materials that were to be stored outside of the building, and perhaps a good list of what those types of materials are. We were unaware, for example, of the pipe needing to be stored outside and things like that. So if you could have a site plan that sort of labeled this would be where trailers would be, this would be where the pipe would be, and that sort of thing, I think that that would help get us going in a new direction. I must ask one more question and one more clarification. Let you go. When I said I was removing that, I was removing all the dirt in the back of that area. I was having somebody today, not the concrete pad. But one of our thoughts, and I'm just running this by for you, was to fence that area back there, you know, because that's where the young people from Woodhill come through. I don't mind them coming over because we befriended most of them. My concern was I would have the neighbors in an uproar if I had a huge fence, a chain link fence back there. So I'm trying to be aesthetically whatever with the neighbors, but it sounds like it's just going to be too costly to get all this done. and it might just be better for me to put the 5,500, not worry about another, or 5,300, not worry about 1,000 because it's going to cost me $100 to get all this other stuff done. And I was just trying to clean up my lot, but it sounds like it's better just to go on. I would say two things. Number one, all is not lost by this 30-day postponement, and you may still be able to get done what you want to get done. The staff, it appears, just needs more information and for you to discuss what you exactly want so they can do their approval. So I think we do a continuous until next month. Hopefully you and Autumn can work out the details of what can and cannot be done and what the staff would recommend. Okay, I appreciate your time. So with that being said, is there a motion to continue this until October 12, 2021, 30 p.m. hearing date? I've got a first by Mr. Glover do I have a second? Mr. Clark seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye raise your hand. So Doug what you would not now want to do is get with Autumn at the planning staff for our Board of adjustments and she'll need a new site plan showing how things have changed, where you want to store certain things. And she can help work through the process of this is the type of fencing. And you can explain to her, I already have this type of buffering landscape here and, and work through those details. But I would not, I would not give up yet. Just, I think, I think this plan just needs more discussions with the staff and come back I appreciate that. It's just, uh, next month will be another month and another month. And I'm, I'm got into winter and I'm trying to get this and it doesn't look like I'm going to get this done this winter. So, uh, I'll, I'll look at this and see if our staff here, what they want to do. And, uh, but we'll postpone it. And if I decide just go on, keep it like I did, that's no problem. I appreciate your all's effort. And again, all of your help and everybody's help. Thanks, Doug. Appreciate it. All right. All right, Doug, we're going to devote you right now and move on. Okay, and that brings us what I believe is our last case of the day. This is on page three, item four, PLNBOA 20-43, Ecton Farm, LLC. It looks like the staff has approved, recommended approval. Mr. Martin is here on behalf of the applicant. And then we've got a couple, we still have two citizens. Yeah, it looks like we still have two citizens. Okay. We'll give you your opportunity to speak after we move through with Mr. Martin. Doug, before we start, how are you doing this afternoon? Good. Perfect. It looks like the staff has recommended approval. It's subject to nine conditions. Has your client seen those? Yes, we review those and we agree with all of them. That is perfect. Dr. Gonneau has contacted the staff and she has asked for 15 minutes to give a presentation on her items. at this point it may be best if you want to go through the project and then autumn i don't think really since you recommend approval the applicant has agreed to abide by the commissions be on standby but we'll skip the staff's presentation and let you go go ahead and uh start thank you i'm going to share my screen if it's okay Is that what we're doing? Okay, yes it is. Yeah, procedures have changed and sometimes I'm on a different side. I always get confused on who can do what. Okay, I can see your screen. Can all the board members, if you could let me know if you cannot see? Can everybody see that? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Adjustment. I'm Doug Martin, and I'm here on behalf of Ecton Farm, and I have with me here today Mike Ecton, who is the owner of Ecton Farm. And this is an application to establish a conditional use for a plant nursery and to use an existing accessory greenhouse in an agricultural zone. This will be a non-retail operation. It will not be open to the public. the property is a 1.486 acres in size and I put it on the the initial screen let's see well we'll go through this this way and so the property is located in very southern Fayette County I guess southeastern Fayette County next to I-75 on Old Richmond Road and you can see the greenhouse really on the other side of the of the interstate from the from the gravel pit down there in southern Fayette County and this is a a long triangular parcel and I guess this was a scrap of of land that was left over from the initial construction of I-75 and you see this along the interstates all over the country frankly you find these kind of odd shaped parcels near the the construction of interstates. The applicant operates an off-premises commercial landscape business on the north side of Lexington and the applicant would like to grow his own plantings rather than purchase them from other commercial vendors and so this property was purchased in August of this year just a month ago at the master commissioner sale and as I'm sure we're going to hear over the next period of time this property has had lots of trouble over the last 20 years but we would submit that with the additional landscaping that the staff has recommended that Mr. Ecton has agreed to to do that this will substantially improve the property over what's been there. And what we would also strongly suggest that the use of the of the greenhouse rather than abandonment of the greenhouse is really the best way to keep it in some sort of a shape. So the examples of Mr. Actually, let's go through this way. So the next slide is the site plan and over to the right of that drawing, you'll see basically the entrance and a paved concrete pad. Staff is requiring that we pave at least one of the pads for handicap access and that we are going to be providing, I guess, four additional, I guess, gravel parking spaces on the site and we have agreed to work with the division of, I guess it's traffic engineering as far as the location and siting of those spaces. The applicant has agreed to plant a substantial number of evergreens along Old Richmond Road in order to help screen the greenhouse and the parking from Old Richmond Road. In addition, as a result of the of the recommendations from staff, we're going to also add a basically a row of evergreens from the end of toward the the very left end of the new plantings uh east down to uh perpendicular with i-75 and so that will help to screen any parking areas there and will further screen the greenhouse from visibility on old richmond road and i have in here a number of slides which will show you that this will all be a substantial improvement over what's been there. So, again, this is just the quick detail. Purchase at the Master Commissioner sale in August, 1.486 acres. Conditional for a planter. Yes. Real quick, before you move on. So your client purchased this at the Master Commissioner sale that was held last month, correct? That's correct. And that was a public sale that anyone could bid on? That is correct. And does your client, was he a member or otherwise involved with the prior owner? No. Property? Okay, so he's a new owner and he just purchased this property. That's correct. Okay, this is a new project. This is a new project. The applicant, Mr. Acton, had no relationship at all to the owner. I took a turn and looked at him and he shook it off no. So this was simply, they saw this advertised on the master commissioner's sale list, and Mr. Eckman has wanted to have a facility like this so that he could grow his own plants. and he you know he uses these plantings in commercial spaces such as the I guess the the Whitaker Bank YMCA and the the memory care facility that's in Beaumont Circle and numerous numerous other facilities so this will not be a place where yes go ahead I just wanted while we were talking about the master commissioner so I just wanted to get that on the Sure. Thank you. So this will not be a place where landscaping will be staged from. And it's not a place where they will receive general deliveries of plants from other vendors. You know, the applicant's facility on the north side of Lexington is set up to receive those deliveries. and to the extent that some of those seedlings and small plants would be taken to this greenhouse, they would be simply put on a flatbed truck and driven there and taken inside it. And I would guess at some point they will be taken outside and planted on the property for additional growing and stuff. So there's sort of a staging of when the plan is sufficiently grown to be able to be outside on its own. And again, this is non-retail and not open to the public. Yeah, he's a design and installation of landscaping projects. You know, the provision living at Bowman, that's the memory care center. And this is artist rendering. I apologize I didn't have anything current and this was the Whitaker family YMCA Mr. Ecton has done both these projects and in addition to just hundreds hundreds of other projects. So let me walk you through old Richmond Road and so this is you've seen the slide before this is is the size, you know, the sort of the layout. It's a long, narrow triangle, and it, you know, staff agree with us that it's just not really suitable to put a house. No one has attempted to put a house on it. They certainly, I guess, have had the opportunity, and as you can see from other surrounding houses, you know, it's quite a bit more narrow than the other properties. One thing while we're looking at this slide, I want to bring to your attention that there's a triangle property on on across the street is Dr. Gno's property. And I would just point out that if you look on sort of the right property line with her neighbor to the south, it's a line of trees. And so because of that, I think that, if I understand the addressing correctly, I think that gentleman might have submitted a letter in opposition, but I was out there last week and I couldn't see that house at all from anywhere near the Ecton property. And so I think that house is completely screened from the greenhouse. And while we're looking at that, I just wanted to point that out. and so this is driving south on old richmond road and uh and and you can see across the street dr gno's property is a just a lovely farm um and she uh obviously is taking great care of that and uh it's just it's a very beautiful farm the property across the street obviously has not been taken care of and it is a in very poor shape and this is the existing uh foliage mr acton has cleaned this up a little bit uh from when it was purchased um and and obviously uh if this is approved there'll be substantial additional landscaping that uh that mr acton will be be adding to to screen uh the greenhouse and any parking area up there but one thing i want you to point out from this view is you really can't you're not going to be able to see any asphalt up there just because the angle of it you'll be able to see you know mid-size of a car upward but you're not going to be able to see a whole lot of it this is the current entrance um to the to the property um it was i think substantially grown over uh and it's been cleaned up some i saw on a google um map photo from last year that it was very grown over. And so this will need some work, obviously, to comply with the Division of Traffic Engineering's requirements and the state's Department of Highways, I guess, requirements. There'll be improvements here. There'll be a paved entrance and a paved at least a paved parking space for handicap and and and we've agreed he will put a sidewalk to the entrance which I assume there's on the left yeah and here's another shot of this and it gets it's it's not a looker it's it's it's not but but there'll be a substantial amount of landscaping that's added to it uh and it's certainly uh having someone there taking care of it and adding you know improvements to it certainly going to improve from what it is it's a large greenhouse and and because of that it was very attractive to mr ecton to be able to grow a really substantial number of plants there for his business. This is going to save him a substantial amount of money from paying for buying plant material from other wholesalers and things like that. This is from the north side looking south, and so the entrance is there at the very end to the left that we looked at before. and uh and so the uh as you may recall i'm going to sit back to the to the site plan ever so quickly so as you see that so we're standing near where the end of the arborvitae would be looking south and so we're going to extend basically the art of art of provide you from that end over to i-75 and so that will really substantially particularly from there you won't be able to see the greenhouse after these things get going for a couple years now you will have a because this is an entrance you will be able to see part of you know part of the building from from through the entrance doug it looks like um there is it on the the left look at this photo the left of the utility easement it looks like there is a berm um i'm presuming that is gonna that is gonna stay yeah we're not gonna take the berm out there's no no reason to and then the trees you're gonna be planting will they be planted on the other side of the berm on top of the berm how's that gonna we're gonna plant them on the top of the berm okay and we we may need to top them from time to time because you you do have utilities really close and the reason i'm asking this is i wanted to see if you were incorporating the berm into your screening of the property from the roadway yes okay and so uh from this angle really you won't be able to see uh the greenhouse from here because it will be uh green giant arborvitaes all along that berm and they will at some point maybe near that I don't know exactly where but because I don't have a sense of the site as well as Mr. Ecton but you know somewhere probably before that that telephone pole in the very middle they will cut over to I-75 and so they will they will provide a substantial screening of the greenhouse from you know from the old Richmond Road this is uh this is actually i'm sorry on your i was gonna say that's not i don't think that's shown on your plans no it's not because this was a requirement that the that the staff added with their uh i got you their recommendations we're talking about 6c evergreen trees shall be planted to the north of the greenhouse in order to screen the parking area so you're so that is intended to modify your plan more or less to essentially have screening going uh from richmond road to i-75 yeah that's correct and and the staff came up came out with this after we had submitted our plan and so we yeah we we will agree with that and uh so you may want to um when you're going through what you guys are going to do just point out things that we're doing this based upon the staff's condition so we don't see i think that's the only one i exchanged some emails with autumn this morning because i thought i just want to make it clear and i'll say on the record This doesn't mean that we're going to put arborvitaes all the way along Old Richmond Road until it runs out. This means that from the end of the last arborvitae shown on our plan, we're going to install arborvitae at a right angle, going straight to I-75. Going east of the way. Excuse me? I think that, yeah, so essentially your plan shows the new green landscaping going north, and then you're going to put in another row going east-west. That's right. It looks like it might take three or four by that point, but yeah. And so from where I'm standing here, I just simply turned around and took a picture. So this is, I think I'm pretty close to the very tip of the property. And so this shows, you know, basically where the property goes on of Old Richmond Road. So I just provide that for context. So there's really nothing to the north of this at all. um as far as to the south of it there's a there's a fairly substantial um uh block of of trees between this and the property owner owner immediately to the south and so i think we'll see uh maybe the in the last photo i repeat a photo from earlier we can see where that is and so unfortunately for dr gano they're really the only property that has any visual of this is Dr. Gonneau there. Obviously, cars can see it, but we think that the addition of the green giant arborvitaes, and they will be substantial. I have 26 in my own yard, so they'll be big. We'll provide a rather beautiful landscape buffer for this. Mine, personally, are just gorgeous, and so I think that will be a tremendous addition to the visual impact of this property. And this is just Dr. Gnoz. I took this from Google Earth just to show what's immediately across the street from this property. And this again is from Google Earth. And if you recall, I pointed out on the previous that line of trees that goes along the back of Dr. Gonneau's property and how it might screen the the the adjacent landowner and this is what it is. You just really can't see that house back there from from this from the applicant property. i just want to walk you through briefly some uh some of the rural service area land management plan update it just has some language in there that i think is important uh this is an agribusiness and so uh we're really talking about the you know how agribusiness is is treated uh in the rural Fayette County. The best preservation tools for the rural service area are those that keep the agricultural economy viable and strong. Agribusiness is a group of industries dealing with the agricultural produce and services required in farming. Local businesses that support a farming operation extend the tremendous economic impacts of agriculture beyond the farm. And of course, this property is within the core agricultural land use category. 2017 update recommends support local agriculture and family farms and land use decisions and economic development strategies and policies. Recognize the full importance of the agricultural cluster and its impact on the local economy. The core agricultural land, the policy emphasis for land use in this category is preservation enhancement of the land for agricultural purposes in order to ensure the continued viability of the local agricultural economy. I don't, I left this in there, but I don't think that the small lot residential really applies to the, to this area, to the, to the old Richmond Road neighborhood area. So I'm going to skip this part. I think this has more to do with clusters, sort of neighborhoods out, out in the rural area. and I'm not really sure that's what this is. This is, however, a crossroad cluster. So crossroad communities provide services to residents without the necessity to travel into Lexington. Some clusters encircle intersections and extend further along the road and merge with other clusters, such as the South Cleveland, Old Richmond, Leanne Lane, McCall's Mill, Grimes Mill area. So, you know, so the Old Richmond Road has a range of residential, agricultural, and business uses because of these clusters. Even though crossroad clusters are predominantly residential, they do have a mix of agricultural, natural areas, store, restaurants, etc. So it's recognized in the 2017 update that that there are these clusters of uses out in the rural area. Old Richmond Road is designated as a historic turnpike. I think the additional landscaping will help the visual appeal of Old Richmond Road. It's also a state-designated scenic byway. It is not located within any of the special natural protection areas, and the closest of which of those would be B24, which is really on the other side of I-75. And I've circled my best guess of where this is, this property is. I think you can see the sort of little hump off I-75, and it's not close to any of the special natural protection areas. So again, just sort of wrapping up, If you look on the other side of I-75, you can see the greenhouse, and then you can see that really substantial standing of trees between the greenhouse and the next property on the west side of Old Richmond Road. So it's very, you know, the house to the south really isn't impacted at all by this greenhouse at all. There are just too many trees in between. And that's my presentation. I would like an opportunity to make comments after any of the objectors speak, if that's permitted. Yes, I'll give you an opportunity to rebut any testimony that they bring up. Of course, leave it. If you keep it at just rebuttal and don't bring in new evidence, then if you bring in new evidence, I'll give them opportunity to rebut that evidence. So it becomes a back and forth sometimes. So let's just try to keep it to the jury. Well, I tendered a letter and I don't know if the folks had a chance to get it. You know, Dr. Knote submitted a massive amount of information that I only received this morning. I did not have a chance to go through it. What I tried to do was submit a letter and I thought it'd just kind of go through the points that are in my letter. and those respond to the comments that are brought up by the objectors. I'd be happy to go through that now if you would like me to. I think that it can wait if it's essentially responding to what you think they're going to say. Because they may not bring something up and then you don't have to respond to it that way. It certainly responds to... You were summarizing a couple minutes ago. Yeah, it certainly responds to objections that have been filed with the Board of Adjustment. Well, let's let, I would say to the extent that there are objections in the letters that aren't brought up with Dr. Gonneau's testimony, I'd say let's wait and do all of your rebuttal to the opponents at one time. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Thank you. So at this point, are there any questions from board members for Mr. Martin, the applicant or staff at this time? okay so what we'll do is i would like to have uh miss hannah go first since um we'll give her the normal three minutes and that way if she wants she can stick around for dr gano's or she can then move on with her day if she so chooses mr sheriff yes i just want to note that there were several letters of opposition that were received for this application and they were made available to you all just to clarify that those that you all have seen those yes yes yes yeah we always I think did everyone receive that email from staff everyone's shaking their head yes so we've had those thank you um all right so uh miss hannah you are now promoted um and uh you're unmuted so please uh proceed i would prefer to speak after dr gano speaks if that is okay that's fine earlier today you're you sound like you uh didn't want to be on the call today so i was trying to do a favor so we will then demote you and bring up dr gano okay is joan are you trying to see me or something well uh a point of order with the chair i didn't know whether both of you were sworn in i think um maybe you were but i'm not sure that what we'll do joan is um as i bring them up i'll confirm okay yeah so what we'll do is we will bring up uh dr gano now um and i believe she was to see if you can unmute and dr gano you were sworn in earlier are you there ma'am uh chair let me check on this number real quick okay that is also that's her as well that's the the same number we had earlier. Okay. Dr. Gonneau, can you hear us now? So right now we've got a call-in underneath Lisa that's unmuted and a call in 187-85756. And Ms. Hannah indicated earlier that that was her phone. Yes. And that she was going to be connecting via a different device. Yes. She's on there twice. But if Dr. Gonneau is not available, we might need to move to Ms. Hannah's. Dr. Gonneau, are you there? That might have been Dr. Gonneau. We're hearing some reverb. Dr. Gonneau, could you unmute your device? Can you hear me? We can now. All right, awesome. So were you sworn in earlier? Yes, sir. I actually raised my hand twice to make sure of that. That's great. So at this point, you are now been promoted and you get an opportunity to proceed with your presentation. All right. Well, I would just like to make the point that typically we'd have about 10 people there to speak. So I have been designated as kind of the main neighborhood person to speak on this. And I appreciate, Chairman Gross, that you have provided me extra time so that I can make sure I make everyone's points. I did have one slide that I asked to be display if Autumn can. Yeah, we are working on that right now. Yep, that would be great. And while that's happening, I'll just make a couple of points to what was said before. There seems to be a mistaken belief that my only concern is the neighborhood's. Real quickly, I've got a slide here. Is there supposed to be a blonde on it? That would be me. I think it's important for everybody to know who is speaking, so that is a picture of me. I thought the last time I saw you had red hair or darker hair. Mr. Gross, can we continue, please? Sure. All right. So I'd just like to make a couple points based on what was said. There seems to be a mistaken belief that the neighborhood's only concern is how this looks. As I've told Mr. Martin, the concern is that it is done correctly and that that be important, that everything is done as it should be. And there was no house on this lot before 2006 because it was an empty lot. And I did see Mr. Martin there taking photos. And my neighbor next door is actually listening to this meeting. and you can actually see the greenhouse from the neighbor's drive. So, you know, there were some strategic photos taken there. So I can assure you, you can see the greenhouse from his drive. So on this slide, you can see I am in my car, in my drive, and you can see the drive entrance to the greenhouse, which is closer than the minimum allowed. I also have a picture that's been submitted into the record many times before, which I think shows the correct measurements or the closest correct measurements of the property that's actually been entered by any applicant or anyone before. And those are actually based on the deed book, which you can see the deed book number right there. So please let the record show. The facts regarding the greenhouse property at 7524 Old Richmond Road are the same as in 2006. and speak for themselves as to variances needed then and now if the greenhouse is to remain and the conditions were not followed. It is for these reasons that the conditional use permit that was on the property was revoked in April 2017. As I have been told, that is an extremely rare occurrence. To this day, not one person has been able to tell me how the building came to be without permits, and no one can provide any records that the greenhouse building was inspected each year as required. Requests to have this structure removed at the owner's expense have been included into the record numerous times since 2015. I am asking that you please deny the request to operate a greenhouse at 7524 Old Richmond Road for numerous outstanding legal reasons. As KRS 100.237 states, granting of a conditional use permit does not exempt the applicant from complying with all the requirements of the building, housing, and other regulations. The greenhouses never met the requirements in order to be a legal use. Numerous variances would have had to have been required in order to place the oversized building on a nonconforming lot and never were granted and cannot be met now. And this is important. The one variance the Board of Adjustment had granted was made null and void when the Board of Adjustment revoked the conditional use permit since the conditions including the variance for the property were never met per the zoning ordinance 7-6-B for variances. This was not addressed in the staff report. The building is closer than required 300 feet from the neighboring residential property. The greenhouse building has never completed any of the 10 requirements per the original Board of Adjustment conditions from 2006. Even though the conditional use permit was revoked, the structure needed to meet certain building standards for health and safety reasons, and it did not. And it never met the conditions as required as minimum conditions in 76A1. It did have an adverse influence on the existing and future development of the subject property and its surrounding neighborhood, as all previous hearings and testimonies prove, including the fact that it was sold on the courthouse steps, which buying there is always buyer beware. not having completed the requirements it did not meet the building inspection requirements the building never had an occupancy permit there were no yearly inspections no landscaping easement no permit for the access or encroachment per the kentucky department of transportation for a commercial greenhouse as everything was voided or closed no entry was made for the county clerk showing that the conditions of the conditional use permit were complete from 2006 no follow-up was ever made with regard to the property other than to say it was out of business the greenhouse is in need of repairs and tending and its natural and it's near its natural shelf life even if it had been properly maintained 764 says when reviewing a conditional use application the board shall thoroughly address potential impacts to any identified environmentally sensitive area geological hazard as further regulated under the subdivision regulations and or the rural service area prime soils as well as any other resources of special concern located on the property the board may require a more detailed site plan and more comprehensive associated information in order to assess and consider the future protection of such areas and resources the structure already existing on this lot by law must be considered in your considerations The current PVA listing, while stating that it is located beyond the urban service boundary in the agricultural rural zone, is still considered a commercial property class and taxed as such with a $0 exemption for an agricultural land value. This is not an agricultural use on a bona fide farm property. In order to be an agricultural use, it must meet the definition for agricultural used in Article 1.3 that clearly states an agricultural use of attractive land of at least five contiguous acres. This property is barely over one acre of land and cannot, under local or KRS definitions for agricultural land, meet the zoning requirements. Therefore, the conditional use for such a greenhouse in the AR zone is and was required to meet 8-1-D-5 for a commercial greenhouse and only when all conditions A through F are being met. Not one of these has been met to date by the previous owners for conditional use as greenhouse and staff did not include in your report. Since the staff mentions Mr. Ecton's property on Swigert Avenue, the applicant's statement for that conditional use from January 2019 states, in purchasing 191 Swigert for his business, the applicant was under the apparently mistaken belief that his business qualified as an agricultural use, which is defined in LFUCG's Article 1 zoning definitions, agricultural use, the use of attractive land of at least five contiguous acres. It's apparent that the applicant and his lawyer were very aware of the requirements and definition of agricultural use. The current staff report for this meeting calls this property a difficult lot and says the small size of the property greatly limits any full-scale agricultural use. By the definition of agriculture, if that was true for Swigert, it must be the same here. The two principal uses in the AR zone are, number one, land use solely for agricultural purposes as outlined in KRS 100. Number two, single family dwellings. The current application refers only to a conditional use for a plant nursery. In every conditional use application since 2006, it was referred to as a commercial greenhouse slash plant nursery. The definition of a plant nursery is an establishment engaged in the outdoor cultivation of only trees and shrubs for transplanting. A greenhouse may be an accessory structure when used to propagate and prepare the trees or plants for planting on the premises. A commercial greenhouse, then, is an establishment primarily engaged in propagating and growing plants in container, in soil, or any other growing medium for the purpose of being sold and transplanted. This 1.46-acre lot is pie-shaped, and the 6,400-square-foot commercial greenhouse occupies the largest part of the pie-shaped lot, leaving very little space for any outside plantings, especially with required setbacks. It's clear from the application that the applicant is intending to use the greenhouse to propagate plants inside of the greenhouse to transfer to another property he owns, and as such, is a commercial greenhouse. Also, in the 2006 staff report for this property, the 300-foot minimum separation requirement from the closest resident is noted, showing that staff also viewed this as a commercial greenhouse and commercial use. In this instance, the greenhouse clearly is not an accessory use. A plant nursery and a commercial greenhouse can only exist in an agricultural rural zone as a conditional use, so there is no structure that could be considered accessory by definition of agricultural. This is a non-conforming lot of record because it's less than the minimum lot size of 40 acres, and it has no agricultural use that meets the intent of the AR zone, which is to preserve the rural character of the agricultural service area by promoting agricultural and related uses. If the required performance bond for the screening per 81D 5A been posted when the first of those conditional use applicants for this property was filed many years ago, this would now all be a moot point for the government's requirements and the surrounding property owners who have had to live with the eyesore. When EnviroSod intended to operate in the greenhouse, it was considered a commercial greenhouse. When Lawns by Letchfield intended to operate in the greenhouse, it was considered a commercial greenhouse. When Dustin's fish tanks intended to operate in the greenhouse, it was considered a commercial greenhouse. In all of these applications, no on-site sales were intended. This applicant's business is a commercial landscaping business for commercial developments, as explained in the applicant's statements for Swigert and Old Richmond Road, not agriculture. And noted, the zoning ordinance definition of commercial greenhouse was not provided in the staff report. In order to grant a variance, the board must find that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity, and will not cause a hazard or nuisance to the public, and will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulations. This statement is on the applicant application. In 2006, there was considerable discussion of whether or not variances could be granted. variances granted in 2006 for the property located at 7524 old richmond row were based on a faulty site plan information given to the staff and the board these variances do not coordinate it do not coordinate with a deeded recorded deed or the recorded plat dimensions for the property variances that were granted erroneously or that circumvent the requirements of the zoning regulations are null and void and may be revoked by the Board of Adjustment according to Zoning Ordinance 76B1. And I've already mentioned that the one variance granted should be null and void. The current development site plan is the least specific among the others submitted in 2006, 2015, and 2018. The easements of record in the county clerk's office are not shown on the site plan and never have been. Variances formally granted for the property are not adequate for the plan to be approved for the current application. More variances were needed in 2006 in order to construct the building on the lot. By definition, the property has two front yards with highway setbacks. No variances were given or requested for the side yard and the front yard setbacks. The plan also did not include the setbacks from the state right away. According to Article 8 of the zoning ordinance existing lots less than 350 feet in lot depth shall have the minimum front yard coincident with the platted building line or 50 feet whichever is greater even agricultural buildings are not exempt from the 30-foot highway setbacks for the protection of existing or proposed street zoning ordinance article 3-4 the widest part of the property by the deed plat map is 157.47 feet on the south boundary line. There's a utility line easement all along Old Richmond Road frontage with utility poles. An encroachment permit and perhaps a variance would be needed before placing the driveway and parking areas within it. The 50-foot yard setbacks fall within the building. A building of that size 36 by 180 feet cannot fit when surrounded by 20 feet of required setbacks on a lot that is only 157 feet on the widest side of the lot. This can't be corrected. The building's too big and the lot's too small. A variance was allowed when no structure shall be built within 300 feet of an existing residential structure on another lot under different ownership and driveways shall be 100 feet from the property lines. Two neighboring lots are less than 300 feet but the original staff report only notes one property. The original report notes it'll be 240 feet from the one residence and the measured distance to my home is 204 feet. The Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to vary setbacks from the U.S. highways and interstates. The applicant suggests that only a portion of the drive be paved. In the AR zone, commercial greenhouses are only allowed when the driveways and parking areas are paved and sealed. As noted many times and in supporting documentation, all transportation applications previously were voided. One paved parking space, as the staff report notes, is not sufficient when asking to have up to six employees and trucks with flatbed trailers. These things are inconsistent with the AR zoning requirements for a commercial greenhouse being allowed as part of a farm agriculture use on five contiguous acres. In 2006, a loop driveway was requested to allow for safe entering and exiting onto US-25 and modified later. There should only be one entry to the property, but I've already seen Mr. Ecton's employees using a flatbed trailer and truck to enter the property from the opposite end of the property because such large vehicles do not have the proper room to safely use that entrance. Having several employees and loading trailers entering and exiting the property when already closer to two drives than the minimum required is dangerous. The greenhouse property is where the road begins to curve on old richmond road which is dangerous for so much entering and exiting on august 31st of this year a head-on collision happened outside of my property there and the vehicles went through my farm fence the one entrance has a setback at zero feet onto a state highway and it is dangerous there are several items i find troubling in the staff report. In the 2006 application, there was to be only one employee on the premises and set pickup times two times a week. However, knowing all the issues with this property, the staff did not find it concerning to have up to six employees with trucks and equipment operating seven days a week at this location from 7.30 to 6 during the week, 8 to 4 on Saturday, and Sundays 12 to 4. This would be more days and hours than allowed on the 10-acre lot at Swigert. Even though the applicant states that not all of the employees will be there all the time, I know that what is permitted can happen and, in my experience, is most likely to happen. I've already come out at 7.30 a.m. to find three employees working over there, essentially in my front yard. I don't believe anyone would like this situation, and I certainly would not expect it living on a rural road. I find it troubling that given the past history with this property that the staff did not feel it necessary to include that if this business were to close that the conditional use could not continue with the property given the history of this building. I believe it should be stated that there should be no storage of equipment or working vehicles left at this location as it would not be allowed in the AR zone. Nothing is mentioned about possible signage outside the building or whether or not lights would be left on in the greenhouse at night, which would illuminate and disturb neighbors. The site drawing is too vague, and the design and layout of the drive and parking should be available for all to review, as none of the requirements have ever been met. Six employees working for any length of time at the greenhouse would need bathroom facilities, which are unavailable at the greenhouse property location. Nothing in the report discusses issues with the variances that have been brought up before by the neighbors. It's as if the greenhouse building isn't even being considered as part of the request. As of Friday the 11th, the PVA still listed Envirosod Aaron Jameson as the owner of the greenhouse property. I question if this request should even be heard if Mr. Ecton is not the current owner. Is this property being transferred and sold based on a contingency for the conditional use? That should be made known. I have been asked why I didn't purchase the property myself. I do not believe that I should have to purchase someone else's mistakes in order to guarantee that the rules and regulations in the zoning ordinance and that the KRS are met. If the rules, regulations, and definitions are important, then they should be followed by everyone the same. I have also heard the argument that, well, the building's already there or that it's already existed for several years. After requesting it to be removed several times, I still believe that to allow a new conditional use permit would be continuing a wrong rather than doing the right thing and finally correcting it. I also continue to hear the argument that it is not suitable for a housing lot, although the property is surrounded by single-family dwellings on small acreage all along that side of the road as a result of the interstate. people are looking for existing small lots to build homes on in the urban beyond the urban service boundary the neighborhood associations contacted all the time about this for instance 2800 walnut hill had a one acre lot that sold in 2011 for 75 000 in 2020 a property at the end of shelby lane sold for 300 000 on a 0.75 acre lot a one acre lot on grimes mill recently sold for 55 thousand other homes have been constructed since the formation of those small lots this would be the only business aside from one on the corner of jack's creek road all along the entire length of old richmond road on that side it would be very inconsistent on the scenic byway surrounded by the residences as i understand from the neighbors opposed to the swigert property owned by mr Ecton. There was opposition to his request there as well as ongoing issues. One major difference there is that the property is 10 acres. It's even larger than this property and already creating problems. Some of those issues include loading and unloading semi-trucks on the rural road and digging well without land disturbance approval. I've already seen trucks using an illegal entrance and working outside the building at the greenhouse property, inside the greenhouse property without an occupancy permit why would i believe that mr ecton wants to be a good neighbor an invitation for a presentation about the project was presented to me but never followed up on neighbors have never heard from the applicant it has already been demonstrated that once approved for the conditional use permit little or no follow-up exists so i'm making a summary of the legal facts the lot is 1.46 acres the board of adjustment has not seen an accurate survey with the exact measurements for the lot or the building the BOA has not seen an accurate plan for where the outside plant nursery will be based on the roads parking existing easements and existing building on the site the board of adjustment has the power to call witnesses and administer an oath as to the validity of the site plan and size of the building and variances needed in order for the building to remain the BOA is required to in the zoning ordinance 76A1 to allow this use in the AR zone only if certain conditions are met and which would not have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment cannot dispute these legal facts. This property has already since 2006 proved that there has been an adverse influence existing on this property and surrounding neighborhood. It's not been a suitable location in the AR zone For nearly 15 years now, the neighbors have been faced with ongoing problems as a result of noncompliance with adopter rules and regulations as it pertains to this property. The staff has been misled by the measurements for this property, and the neighbors and neighborhood association members have been adversely impacted by time, money, as the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association had to hire legal counsel. Work days lost, and many neighbors have had their property values impacted by this eyesore. This structure is a health and safety issue. I would ask for a postponement until such time as there is an accurate site plan based on accurate measurements and size of the plant nursery location, the location and accurate size and measurements of the existing building, as witnesses can be called. In February 2017, Jim Marks of zoning compliance with planning wrote me a letter which states, nevertheless, many feel it's important at this point to obtain some closure on this issue one way or the other. And we completely agree. We've been presented about this property. We've presented about this property since 2015. Neighbors have dealt with the eyesore and problems since 2006. and since successfully having the conditional use permit revoked in April 2017, based on the facts, this is the second application for a conditional use permit since that meeting. How much must one citizen and one neighborhood endure? This structure is a health and safety issue. The last applicant even placed all of my personal information on YouTube, causing threatening responses to me from the post, which caused me to contact YouTube and the local police. We would fully expect that all the conditional use requirements would need to be met before consideration of any new conditional use permits. The building could have and should have been removed at the owner's expense in 2017 when the government had the legal right to remove the structure and recover the money. We're requesting that this conditional use permit application be denied based on the fact that the building is not legal and it does not have the necessary variances. As we believe that there certainly needs to be a conclusion to this once and for all, if the application is approved, we will need to explore all available options in this matter. I request that all of my notes be entered into the official record along with all of the documents I submitted and the video that I submitted and the letters from neighbors that have already been submitted and provided. and just to note there was another letter that came in this morning and I hope that you were able to receive that from the neighbors as well because three different neighbors on some of these small lots down the road submitted that early this morning and I thank you for your time. Thank you for that Dr. Badeau and yes we do have the information that you have delivered which includes your USB drive with the video I believe of the revocationary. Yes sir. So is there anything else you want to add before I have Ms. Hannah present? Not at this time no. Thank you ma'am. In that case what we'll do is we will devote you. We will bring up Ms. Hannah now her time to speak. Hello. My name is Mary Diane Hanna. Real quickly, were you sworn in earlier? Ready for me to do that? Yes, ma'am. Please raise your right hand. You can see me. No, I can't, but all you have to do is say yes at the end. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, ma'am. If you could, We'd like to keep you to about three minutes. I can handle that. All right. In that case, please proceed. First of all, I appreciate your efforts and your work. And I know you've been through this with me and with Lisa and others for many years. Do you want me to reiterate my letter out loud or have you all read it? I'd be happy to read it. I have received the letters, but by all means, if you want to reiterate your points in your letter, you are more than able to do so at this time. I will do that. Okay. Dear Board of Adjustment members, the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association respectively requests that you please deny the request for any conditional uses for the property located at 7524 Old Richmond Road. The neighbors, their property values, and the neighborhood have been adversely impacted for many years as a result of the lack of respect for the zoning ordinance requirements and the ongoing derelict conditions existing on this property. The records on this property prove the rules and regulations for the abandoned and partially built greenhouse were never completed and therefore an occupancy permit never obtained. The Neighbors and Neighborhood Association have already spent countless hours and dollars over the years trying to get this property to come into compliance with the laws. The required notice sent to the neighborhood has left out some very important legal facts. We wish to emphasize these to you, and I think Lisa has done a lot of that today. While the request says it is for a conditional use permit to operate, quote, a plant nursery, unquote, as permitted in Article A-1, parentheses D-4, it ignores the fact that already on the property exists this very large abandoned commercial greenhouse that previously lost its conditional use permit to operate due to lack of compliance. This structure would also require an additional conditional use permit with numerous conditions as listed in Article 8-1D5 in order to consider this request to operate and obtain an occupancy permit. unless the unless the applicant intends to remove the greenhouse structure the neighborhood insists the conditional use permit must also meet the zoning ordinance requirements listed in article 8 1 d 4 and 8 1 d 5 for both a plant nursery and a commercial greenhouse the facts as stated in previous BOA hearings related to this property remain unchanged. First, the property does not qualify for the ag use since it is a non-conforming lot of 1.4 acres, not meeting the definition or minimum lot size requirement of 40 acres in Article 8.1f. The size of the lot has numerous problems associated with its size as a result of not having given correct measurements or adequate information to building inspection when filing for the greenhouse building permit or to the planning staff in previous hearings prior to the construction of the building. It is the responsibility of the property owner to be accurate and honest with the staff and the Board of Adjustment. Second, in order to meet KRS 100 and the zoning ordinance article 1 through 3 definition for an agricultural use, the property must contain at least five contiguous acres for the production of a horticultural crop, which would include plants in a nursery. This property only has 1.4 acres and not the required five acres. Since the lot does not meet the agricultural use requirement for five acres, it does not qualify for the agricultural land use exemption in Article 3-4. and the lot already contains the large existing structure that has previously been judged by the Board of Adjustment and staff as a commercial greenhouse. A previous BOA removed the conditional use permit because the conditions on the lot for the structure were never met. The BOA did not require the removal of the building as requested. Therefore, the commercial greenhouse structure remains standing with no conditions to allow it to be operational. Third, the zoning ordinance is clear in Article 3-1c that, quote, there shall be no more than one principal structure and its accessory structures on any lot or parcel of land in an agricultural zone, unquote. There is an existing structure as defined in Article 1-18 on the lot in the existing greenhouse as defined in Article 1-14 for principal structure and in Article 8-1B1. Fourth, the greenhouse cannot be considered an accessory structure on the lot since by definition, let's see, definition for accessory use or structure in Article 1-2 and Article 8-1c accessory uses, it must be subordinate to the principal use and incidental, and no accessory structure can be constructed on a lot before a principal structure. A large existing structure such as the principal greenhouse that covers a majority of the lot space cannot be considered incidental, nor is it accessory since not a single condition or plant for a nursery use was ever granted or given prior to having been built. Lastly, regardless of whether the request is for a plant nursery or utilization of the existing greenhouse, variances for at least the minimum front yard, as stated in Article 8.1H3, and each side yard, as stated by Article 8-1I, and rear yard, Article 8.1J, including driveways and parking, are required to meet those two conditional uses. Article 3-1B clearly states that no building or other structure shall hereafter be erected or altered. 4. Number four, to have narrow or smaller rear yards, front yards, side yards, or open spaces. These variances have not been requested or granted and no notices given or posted as required. The one variance that was granted through a previous request was for a driveway that became null and void when the Board of Adjustment took away the earlier conditional use permit to operate the commercial greenhouse. It is with all of these outstanding legal issues that, with all due respect, the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association asks for denial of this request. No such conditional uses should be granted on this lot until all KRS-100 and LFUCG zoning ordinance are properly requested and can be rectified by the applicant. Sincerely, Mary Diane Hanna, President of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. So basically, this site plan does not and cannot ever meet the proper requirements for a conditional use permit of this nature. It sets a bad precedent to approve this conditional use after you finally revoked it when it in no way complies with the LFUCG ordinances. Our neighborhood, as many of you know, has a problem with businesses breaking these ordinances. You've been through this with us before for many years. Approving this business working on this site plan yields a bad precedent, something we sought to alleviate when the conditional use was revoked. I know you, the Board of Adjustment, know and or can read the rules, so to speak. So, you know this lot does not comply with the AR zoning ordinance. Thank you, and I'd like for my letters to be entered into the official record and my statements today be entered into the records. Thank you, Ms. Hannah. Yes, noted. Before we move on, we're going to, at this point, is there anyone on the board who has a question for Ms. Hannah? Okay, I see no hands. So, Ms. Hannah, we will demote you at this time. I would like to, how do you want her? And then at this point, I'd like to, Autumn, is there anything that, having heard all the testimony before we have the applicant come back for a refuddle, is there anything that you want to add? Yes, there are a couple of things I would like to clarify that have come up numerous times throughout the presentation. The fact that this is not an agricultural use, what is being requested is a conditional use. It's a defined conditional use. a plant nursery is a defined conditional use in this zone. The fact that the definition of agricultural use says that a property has to be five acres is irrelevant to this application. The applicant is not seeking an agricultural use. While a plant nursery certainly triggers the word agriculture in our minds because it is sort of an agricultural adjacent use, certainly, it is a specifically defined use. The second part is that there's a difference between a greenhouse structure and the use that is defined in our ordinance as a commercial greenhouse. We keep hearing tossed around that since there's a greenhouse here, we have to have a conditional use for a commercial greenhouse. That's not the case for this application. What the applicant is requesting does not meet the definition of a commercial greenhouse. It has been determined to be closer in definition to a plant nursery, and that is why we are reviewing it as such. Some of the previous applications have been for a commercial greenhouse, and that was because they primarily had a retail component, or with the original conditional use, which was revoked, they had a conditional use for a commercial greenhouse to produce sod. Sod production is not the same as growing plants in a plant nursery. That is why that was a commercial greenhouse. With Dustin's fish tanks, the most recent application, he was growing plants to be sold to individuals and trucked out on a daily basis for individual sales. So that retail component is something that's going to trigger that commercial greenhouse use. The growing of plants to be transplanted either to Mr. Ecton's Swigert property or to a job site does not constitute a commercial greenhouse and is why we are considering this application as a plant nursery. Those were the biggest things that jumped out to me as something that we kept hearing. If you have other questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you, Audra. Does anyone have any questions for Autumn right now? I have a quick one for Ms. Jones, who I believe is at the Chapers. All right, seeing none from Autumn, if Ms. Jones doesn't mind getting on the screen. good afternoon tracy sorry i wanted to um have the law department weigh in on one issue um it's my understanding that once a variance is granted it just exists i don't think it revoked because of a conditional use that may have been associated with the property has been revoked. Is that the case? That's correct and it actually says that in Article 7, 6 of the zoning ordinance about variant it says they run with the land. That was my recollection. I just wanted to make sure that I clarified that for the record for the board members was that once a variance has been granted it just exists. That's correct. Okay thank you. Thank you, ma'am. So at this point, is there any more? Oh, Autumn? I was just coming back, but I'll also note that I believe that that variance was for one of the requirements for a commercial greenhouse, so it would be unlikely to be needed in this instance. But it still exists. It does still exist, and it was likely tied to a site plan, but it does still exist. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Any questions from any board members at this juncture before I had Mr. Martin give? Let's try to keep it a five-minute rebuttal if we could I would appreciate that okay so Mr. Martin you're up if we get on you Mr. Martin thank you chair autumn covered to the main items I guess the third item would be you know there's a lot of talk about the history of this in the previous certificate of occupancies you know the Board of Adjustment is not reviewing past certificate of occupancies. It's not reviewing the current certificate of occupancies. Mr. Ecton will comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Lexington Bay and Urban County government and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. And so there will certainly be reviews and applications to file and things like that. And we'll just take care of those requirements as we go through that process. There was some talk about, you know, tearing down and removing the greenhouse. As I've mentioned, this was requested on numerous occasions. It's always been declined. The objectors have have themselves made this request on on previous occasions, they had the opportunity to appeal the denial that request to the to the Fayette Circuit Court on number of occasion. So I would submit just as a legal matter, just to preserve it for the record, that that would be race judicata. At least I will at least raise that as an issue that, you know, they have asked for that to happen. It was turned down. They had an opportunity to appeal that and they declined to appeal that. And I'll just go through my, I guess, really kind of a closing comment just briefly. You know, as frequently happens with applications in the rural area. Today's application for conditional use permit is really the sort of the tension between, you know, rural agriculture and country estates and residential. And as we grow in Lexington, a lot of people want to move out to the country and enjoy the things that the country provides. You know, when I went to high school, I was in high school, my parents moved us to Woodford County. And the joke about Woodford County is everybody who moves to Woodford County wants to join the Preservation Society to keep everybody else from moving to Woodford County. And we've got just a little bit of that here. And we have folks who have moved to the country yet don't like some of the things that happen in the country and by necessity have to happen in the country. You know, there's going to be hay wagons and there's going to be smelly animals and there's going to be things like that. And so, you know, the 2017 update for the Rural Land Management Plan recognizes the importance of agribusiness to the Fayette County economy. And so the question today is whether we're going to allow gentrification to push agribusiness out of Fayette County. particularly old richmond road it's a gorgeous road but we have very wealthy landowners i'm not referring to any of the people spoke today but we have some very wealthy landowners moving into the old richmond road area and the question is do those folks get to basically kick kick the agribusiness out because you know they're they're they're you know they're too low rent for their new swanky neighborhood and so i would suggest that you know we have to as my mother used to say we have to forgive people the faults of their virtue. People are going to move to the country. That's great, but there's going to be things that happen in the country that aren't always, you know, you know, the Greenbrier or the Biltmore. This is agribusiness, and so the staff have made a really excellent suggestions. My client has agreed to put those suggestions into place. This will dramatically improve the look of this property, and obviously it's going to be as far as the following the laws. My client will work with the staff at the city to make sure that all the requirements are met. And so I appreciate your time and your consideration. We ask for your approval. Thank you, Mr. Martin. At this time, I'm going to go ahead and close the public portion of the meeting. I will add, we can start discussing amongst the board members at this point. So if there are any discussion points, and if anyone wants to have any inquiries from any of the applicant or the proponents, I mean opponent, opponents, or the staff at this point, please raise your hand and let me know if the board feels comfortable moving forward with the motion. I'm also willing to entertain that too at this time. Mr. Clark, you're muted. Let me unmute you. Thank you, sir. I think I need some clarification. This is approval for a plant nursery. Mr. Clark, we're getting a lot of raised hands from the attendees. At this point, I've closed the hearing for the public and for us to be appellant unless we ask for questions. So just so everyone knows, we're not going to be bringing people up. It's now for the board to have their discussion. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Clark. I apologize. Yeah, thank you. This is for approval for plant nursery. And so I would like to ask the applicant exactly how this is going to work on this particular property. Understand that we're moving materials from Swigert Avenue into this for storage. And so I'd like to have some definition for planting and storage and where that's going to take place. I'm a little concerned about the idea that the greenhouse itself is going to be used for that purpose and perhaps solely for that purpose and without much else on the property. So if I could get some response about that, are the materials planted when they arrive at this, or are they stored? And what's the nature of the plants when they arrive? Are they bare root? Are they bald and burlapped? What's actually happening to the plants when they arrive? I think that's important to this application. If I could have Mr. Martin or Mr. Ecton or someone respond, I appreciate it. Well, thank you, Dr. Clark. So the plants will not be bald and burlap. These are not going to be large plants. These are going to be seedlings for the most part. I think that Mr. Ecton could plant seeds in containers and have them inside the greenhouse. And when they're in the greenhouse, they're protected from the weather and they have sunshine. and they can be watered more in a more regular manner. And those, you know, you're growing plants. It's not, this isn't a warehouse for plants. It is a greenhouse where plants will grow. And it's for the nurturing of plants. Some of those plants will probably, you know, I guess at some point graduate and can be kept outside when they're hardy enough, but not really big enough to be used in a project. And so to answer your question, the plants, anything that is purchased in seedling, and I'm going to look at my client here briefly. So anything that's purchased as a seedling would be delivered to the Swigert Avenue location. and um and i guess occasionally i mean when you're not talking but you know occasionally probably more during the startup period you know a couple times a week or once a day or something like that but you know a truck would come down and folks would unload the truck and would place it on tables inside the greenhouse and you have to water them and you have to feed them and things like that But, you know, it is not economical, contrary to the objectors, to keep six employees at a commercial greenhouse. Or not in a commercial greenhouse, but at a greenhouse. And it is not a commercial greenhouse. But it is not economical to do that because, you know, these folks are out on job sites. And so what they plan to do is they plan to get them, you know, there to the greenhouse and they plan to water them and, you know, and take care of them and get out as soon as they can and get to a job site. And so the place will be empty the vast majority of the time. So periodically, when plants are sufficiently grown and hardy enough to be considered for projects, they will be taken back to the Swigert Avenue location, and they're probably kept in mulch outside until it's time to use those for a project. And so this is a place to propagate plants. And you know what? That's a pretty slow pace, low activity, quiet. And plants don't make a lot of noise when they grow. Okay, Mr. Warren, let me just read Article 111. This is why I asked the question because I'm still confused. It defines a plant nursery as an establishment engaged in the outdoor cultivation of only trees and shrubs for transplanting. and a greenhouse may be an accessory structure when used to propagate and prepare the trees or plants for planting on the premises. That's correct. So I'm just a little concerned they're not we're not planting any trees outside the greenhouse is that correct? They will graduate from the from the greenhouse we absolutely are so they will start in the greenhouse because that's what a greenhouse is for it's to propagate young plants and at some point they will get big enough where they can survive outside and they will be taken outside and planted on the property there and there's enough property contrary to the applicants to uh to put quite a few uh outdoor trees and things like that because at that at that size they're only you know a couple feet apart and so um um and so i think this is you know this is exactly what's going to happen is is they'll either be planted as seeds, brought in as seedlings, kept in the greenhouse, which is what the accessory greenhouse for a plant nursery is. And then at some point, they'll graduate and be taken outside to be planted in the ground. A couple other quick questions. Is there water on the property, Mr. Martin, for watering, or is that trucked in? No, I think there's city water to the site. City water, okay. And sewers. I don't know whether we'll, I don't know the sewer situation, but the staff's recommendation inquires that we, you know, we have private sewer facilities and, you know, we might have a port-a-potty and back out of sight or something like that. Mr. Clark, this is Brandon. I would assume that that could easily be on septic. Yeah, very possible. That was kind of my, I was. but I do have a question I want to follow up on your comments because I have the same kind of reading through materials I just want to confirm so it's my understanding that your client will not be storing mulch, rock, other landscaping materials that would be used in the commercial landscaping business none of it you will only be doing the actual growing of plants in this location this will be a pure plant nursery for small seedlings and again you know this has been a goal for Mr. Ecton that that he could grow his own material so that he had done have to buy it from commercial growers which was substantially more expensive so thank you but I thought this was material it was coming to Swigert Avenue from commercial growers that would then be transported to to the Richmond Road yeah that that's what it That's what the application says. Well, it's either, we might be planting seeds or it might be seedlings. I mean, but we're talking pretty small things. That's what goes in a greenhouse. But, you know, but again, this is, you know, this is a plant nursery. This isn't a McDonald's. It's a plant nursery. And it's very low intensity. And it's really hard to see how it'd be any less intensive. Good, good. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any other discussion or questions from any members of the board? All right, let's go ahead and mute Mr. Mark. All right. Okay, well, once again, I will entertain a motion or further discussions. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 20-43 Ecton Farm LLC's request for conditional use to establish a plant nursery in an agricultural zone at 7524 Old Richmond Road. The reasons listed in the staff report, the testimony we've heard today, and subject to the nine conditions contained therein. Thank you, Mr. Glover. I have a first. Does anyone want to second? Second. Ms. Carter seconds. Anyone want to discuss the motion? Hearing none, then I will put it to your vote. Please, if you're in favor, raise your hand. And so I've got Mr. Needham, Whitman, Carter, Walker, and Glover, myself included. Any opposed? Please raise your hand. Mr. Clark is opposed. the application has been approved good luck with your project so we will now promote the applicant and we will move on to the easy stuff is there any board items that need to be discussed at this time I will remind everybody that we are coming up very soon to the time that we have to start setting our hearings for next year if you recall this is always troublesome for us because we like to move things around. So if that is the case then let's go ahead and have those discussions. We probably want to set those discussions next month as I would assume staff would like us to approve November would be their preference for us to approve the schedule. I'm comfortable with the time in the day we've been doing these. I like the Monday versus the Friday time period and once again if we do want to change it we have to make sure the chambers are available and other things of that nature. Is there any, is anyone here want to discuss possibly moving days or time next year? No, I'm comfortable with, I'm comfortable with the one 30 Monday meetings as well. Yeah. I like this time. And if nobody has any objection, I think we can might be able to go ahead and decide now. Well, I think we can't decide now is we have to have a staff has to present the actual days, but we can tell the staff to go ahead and we can approve that in October. With the idea, yeah. With the idea. So it sounds like we'll be willing to keep the same day and time next year, and then we can go ahead and knock that out next month. That's one less thing for staff to worry about between now and year end. Have we seen a calendar for next year? No, and then we'll put it together now that they have an idea of what we want, and then we can get that before our meeting next month so we can approve it next month. Okay. Yeah. Then also to remind everyone that in January, I believe, we will do new officers. So if anyone wants to overthrow me, now is the time to start plotting. I will make it easy on you. It won't take a lot to shove me out of the chair. But that's also something we will do, and we normally do that at our January meeting. For that year is my recollection is when we do it. So just to keep that in mind as sort of our end year last quarter administrative stuff we're doing. Those are the things I can think of that we have coming up. Staff, Autumn, is there anything you're aware of that I didn't bring up? No, I don't think so. Oh, Ms. Wade. Continue Zoom for the foreseeable future. Oh, is that the only thing you're going to say? For the foreseeable future. Okay. Ms. Wade has her hand up. She is waving like a maniac here to speak. Well, I just want to remind Mr. Walker that he has orientation on Friday for our new members and we'll be on Zoom again. So he'll join the planning services staff and also our three new planning commission members for training Friday, September 18th. We also have another training opportunity for both planning commission and the board of adjustment on October 23rd. and David Pike who is an attorney in Kentucky will be again doing a zoom training session but that'll be available for for all of our board members and it's a Friday October 23rd and it typically is an all-day session so you can get all eight of your required hours I say well Stephanie or someone remind those of us because I think it's you have to have them every two years that's who needs what don't come out of compliance. I will try to get that list to you all. I know there are a couple of you that are in need of some hours. I can't think of who it is off the top of my head and I won't call you out, but I will go ahead and make sure that everyone is where they need to be on that. Okay, yeah, if you could do that, because I know I forget, but I will say those who have not been, I've been to David Pike's presentation. Him and his law partner are pretty funny um and it's it's a relatively entertaining presentation given the material that you're covering all day long but it is a way to knock it out i think i did it that's what i'm concerned is that i did it yeah two years ago and i made eight hours exactly before and you have to have the before the end of december or you can't serve on the board so it's a hard deadline and everybody's terms are staggered based on when they were appointed. So for instance, Mr. Chairman Gross might need his time in this year, but Mr. Clark might need his by the end of next year. So it sort of depends on when you were appointed. But because David Pike comes every other year, if you come every time to David Pike's presentation one Friday every two years, you're all set. That's why I'm concerned. I think Chad and I need to go this year because I think we went two years ago. No? He shouldn't have said no. We'll find out. Oh, but Hal's saying you do need to go, Chad. What? Yeah. I think we skipped David last year and you and I are in the same cycle. We'll get that sent out this week to everybody. yeah chad it sounds like you need to go is what i'm being told i don't think so i went to a um i went to a uk uh seminar there once i think qualified for it oh okay well that's one thing too i know i've talked to pam about because i do a lot of real estate cles that deal with have these issues and I can sometimes take credit to otherwise. But you know, I'm open to it if that's what has to happen. Pam will get us out of the list so we all know who needs to finish up with continuing education this last quarter. So just so Chad knows, you and I are in the same cycle. Okay, the next meeting will be October 12th, 2020 at 1.30pm on Monday. If there's no further comments or business. I will adjourn. Everyone, please stay safe at home. Wear your mask. Wash your hands. Let's all keep our families with this through this trying time. Thank you.