# Board of Adjustment - November 9, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 9, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5243 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5243?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-11-09 - **Last revised**: November 9, 2020 - **Length**: 14,816 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 Division of Planning Zoning Compliance Section Board of Adjustment held a meeting on November 9, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference. Branden Gross presided over the meeting, which addressed five agenda items including variance appeals, conditional use appeals, and administrative appeals. The board took six motions and votes during the session and heard three public comments. Of the five cases reviewed, four were approved and one was denied. The approved items included variance appeals for JN Harrodsburg, LLC and Anderson Communities, Inc, as well as conditional use appeals for Sandra Clements and Nathan T. Cook. The administrative appeal filed by Joseph Fenwick was denied. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 9, 2020: * Branden Gross * Thomas Glover * Joan Whitman * Raquel Carter * Harry Clarke * Chad Needham * Chad Walker No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered six motions during this meeting, approving five and denying one. **PLN-BOA-20-00056: JN Harrodsburg, LLC - Variance to Reduce Front Yard Setback** Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed 6-0-1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor were Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Chad Needham, and Chad Walker. One board member abstained. The approval is conditioned on construction in accordance with application materials, a minimum rear yard of 20 feet, and permits obtained prior to construction. **PLN-BOA-20-00057: Anderson Communities, Inc - Variance to Reduce Setback** Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. All board members voted in favor: Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Chad Needham, and Chad Walker. Conditions include construction in accordance with application materials, notation on the Final Development Plan, and permits obtained prior to construction. **PLN-BOA-20-00055: Tates Creek Christian Church - Conditional Use for Childcare Center** Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. Conditions include operation Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., a limit of 40 children, a fenced play area, and operation as a licensed facility. **PLN-BOA-20-00053: Sandra Clements - Conditional Use for Home-Based Business** Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. The conditional use is void if the applicant no longer resides at the location. **PLN-BOA-20-00054: Nathan T. Cook - Conditional Use to Extend R-2 Regulations** Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. Conditions specify that accessory living quarters cannot be rented and must have no kitchen facilities, with permits obtained prior to construction. **PLN-BOA-20-00058: Joseph Fenwick - Administrative Appeal to Increase Accessory Building Size** Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion failed unanimously 0-7, with all board members voting against the appeal. ## Public Comment Three members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Sara Grant** addressed concerns regarding conditional use for a home-based business. She expressed concerns about potential violations of conditions for the home-based business and asked about enforcement procedures. **Debra Madden** spoke regarding a conditional use to extend R-2 regulations. She raised concerns about parking and the potential future rental of accessory living quarters. **Frances Kurre** also commented on the conditional use to extend R-2 regulations. She expressed concerns about additional dwelling units and density in the neighborhood. ## Contested Items **Joseph Fenwick's Administrative Appeal** An administrative appeal regarding an accessory building size increase was contested during this meeting. The appeal sought approval to increase the dimensions of an accessory building on the property. The primary concern raised in opposition to the appeal centered on precedent-setting. Community members and officials expressed worry that approving the request would establish a precedent for noncompliance with existing regulations. The appeal was denied based on these concerns about the implications of approval for future compliance with building size restrictions. ## Variance Appeals - JN Harrodsburg, LLC JN Harrodsburg, LLC requested variances to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for 33 lots. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Darby Turner presented the variance request to the board. The proposal was approved. ## Variance Appeals - Anderson Communities, Inc Anderson Communities, Inc. requested a variance to reduce the required setback from 25 feet to 15 feet on a split-zone property. **Presentation and Recommendation** Jon Strom presented the variance request to the board. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. **Outcome** The variance appeal was approved. ## Conditional Use Appeals - Sandra Clements Sandra Clements requested a conditional use permit for a home-based business offering personal Pilates instruction. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. The application was approved. ## Conditional Use Appeals - Nathan T. Cook Nathan T. Cook requested a conditional use to extend R-2 (residential) regulations into the B-1 (business) zoned portion of his property. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. The appeal was approved. ## Administrative Appeals - Joseph Fenwick Joseph Fenwick requested an increase to the allowable size of an accessory building on his property, seeking to expand from 690 square feet to 960 square feet. Staff recommended disapproval of the request. The appeal was denied. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-20-00056** — passed (6-0): JN Harrodsburg, LLC - variance to reduce front yard setback - **PLN-BOA-20-00057** — passed (7-0): Anderson Communities, Inc - variance to reduce setback - **PLN-BOA-20-00055** — passed (7-0): Tates Creek Christian Church - conditional use for childcare center - **PLN-BOA-20-00053** — passed (7-0): Sandra Clements - conditional use for home-based business - **PLN-BOA-20-00054** — passed (7-0): Nathan T. Cook - conditional use to extend R-2 regulations - **PLN-BOA-20-00058** — failed (0-7): Joseph Fenwick - administrative appeal to increase accessory building size --- ## Full transcript expand that footprint if you will in the park was what we could do in this area to really combine some resources to leverage some funds and make some improvements to this area. This is just the first of many conversations about that and kind of the first phase. So I'm with here with Director Monica Conrad. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Thank you Councilmember Bledsoe. So talk to us a little bit about how what we're thinking about for this space. Sure. Well we're excited to be working obviously with water quality and Director Martin on improving this space here at Southland Park. The basin that will be created will allow us to really install a brand new playground here at Southland. This one has reached its end of life, as you know, so it's time to reinstall a new one. We're going to be able to do that here near the shelter area, a little closer to the shelter, to the restrooms, provides more shade and seating area for our users and our citizens who walk in from the neighborhood. So we're really excited about that aspect. will also be moving that basketball court. So the playground will pretty much go in the space that the basketball court is now. The basketball court, we're going to relocate near the Aquatic Center. It's going to be a better access, provide better lines of sight, and give us a great new amenity here at Southland Park. Well, thanks. It's really exciting. And then people love this park. We got new tennis courts not too long ago that actually people were on just a few minutes ago. A lot of schools in this area walk here to play on this park in this area. The softball area and baseball field here is highly used as well as the pool. So really, the real big exciting part, I think, is the basketball court because people love to play basketball, especially in Kentucky, especially right now being outside. So that's really going to be nice for this area, especially upgrading the park. The trees here provide some great shade, I think, for some of the playground, unlike down here, which just kind of gets hot in the summertime. It does. It does. You know, in this basin area is going to have a walking path that will still allow access to that baseball field. which we're really excited about. It's also great passive recreation in this space. So while we'll have construction going on in our park and these wonderful water quality improvements, in the end, we're gonna end up with much better opportunities for our users. I think you're right. People love to walk and having that walking trail around here, I think will be really nice as an amenity. So we're really excited about what's coming to Southland area. And I know this is a lot to digest. And again, we're just kind of in the first phase of this. So we want to provide some opportunity for feedback as well. So if you're interested in the park portion of the redesign Thank you. 20. Prior to the meeting, I want to make the following announcement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020. In Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 6 1.826 because it's not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. So that is our announcements of us doing the Zoom meeting today. We will now kind of go through the agenda and the first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from our meeting on October 12th, 2020. Staff has circulated those. This is for the four. Does anyone have any questions, comments, revisions to those minutes? And seeing no hands in that instance, does anyone want to make a motion for approval? Mr. Chair, I'll move approval of the October 12th minutes. Mr. Clark moves. I second. Mr. Glover seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. I show it being unanimous. Thank you very much. So now we'll go through the actual public part of the agenda. Before we start and sound the agenda, does anyone want to withdraw or postpone any of the applications? We did receive an application for 858 West Main Street which is not on your agenda today because they requested a postponement until next month before notification went out. The letters did go out to the neighbors so if anyone happens to be in the audience listening for that case that has been postponed to next month. It was not advertised in the legal ad or anything like that. Okay before you go on to the next one would you by chance have the case number and name and address repeat that once more? I don't have the case number on me it was 858 West Main Street. Okay so if you're here in the audience for 858 West Main Street the applicant has requested that application be postponed and heard in for our December meeting which will be on December 14th at 1 30 p.m. via zoom so if you are here for that case there's no reason for you to stick around because that case will not be heard today. Thank you very much. Okay, what else do you got, Autumn? And then for item number two under conditional use appeals, PLN VOA 20-54, Nathan T. Cook, the applicant has withdrawn the administrative appeal portion of his request, so you will only be hearing the request for a conditional use today. Okay, so for the 140 Victory Avenue, we will be hearing that case, but that case will be heard only in partial as part of that case has been involved. Anything else on it? And while I've got you, were there any additional letters that weren't in the Google Drive that we need to be aware of? Everything should be in the Google Drive. You should have one letter of opposition for item number one under variance appeals, JN Harrodsburg, LLC. Letter of opposition, you said? Yes. Okay. And has that letter been provided to the applicant? I don't believe it has. Okay. Could we go ahead and email that to the applicant just so that council could look at it prior to the hearing? I can do that. Awesome. Thank you. Trace is this you can hand it. And then we have another letter. On item number two, Anderson Communities, you should have received one letter in opposition and one letter in support. Okay. Is, you know, is Mr. Murphy representing? I believe Mr. Strom is on. Okay. So if you could send that to Mr. Strom, if you guys haven't already, so he can see that in advance. So let's call him the case. I'll do that as well. Tracy said she would handle that too. Thank you Tracy. And then for item number two under conditional use appeals number 54 Nathan T. Cook we have one letter of opposition and one letter of support. okay once again if we could send that to the applicant i just think it'd be easier if they have a chance to review the letters before they get that way they can start and for the applicants that are receiving these letters opposition if you could please review those and be ready to speak to those concerns of your neighbors because oftentimes the members of the board will ask about those concerns so we can hear how you how you think they could be. Is that all we got, Vodem? We had one individual indicate that they may wish to speak on the conditional use. Number one, Sandra Clements, but we don't have a letter from that person. Okay, well we'll give them an opportunity. Thank you very much ma'am, I appreciate it. Okay, so the next item I'm going to work through is we're going to swear in witnesses. So at this time, if there are any more claims to speak today to the board, either in opposition or in favor of an application, please make sure you're in it. If you're not being brought up as a panelist by a step. We're actually just allowing these. Okay. Yeah, that's fine too. Yeah, she's lying you can speak. So give us a second while we go through and click everybody. Hello? Hello, just stay with us for one second. We can hear you. I'm sorry. I wanted to sign up for public comment and I might have missed it. No, you have not. You have not missed that yet. What we're going to do right now is square people in and then I'm going to call each case and determine who wants to speak on each case. Okay, thank you. Sit tight. Give us about a minute. We'll have this part done. Okay, Mr. Chair, we also have a phone caller at this time. And I'd just like to let that phone caller know if you need to raise your hand, if you'd like to speak during the meeting, you can do so on your phone via Star 9. And that will indicate to us that we need to allow you to talk. The number ends in 1601. If you're just observing and you don't want to speak, then that's fine, no problem. Okay. All right, well, thank you. So at this point, if you could, please raise your hand and repeat after me. I swear to tell, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. I do. I do. Thank you very much. We'll confirm that you were sworn once the case is called. So now I'm going to start calling each case individually. We're just going through right now to make sure the applicant and anyone here who wants to speak in favor of opposition is listed. so we can give an opportunity for everyone to talk today. So the first item we have on the agenda is a variance appeal. That's PLN VOA 20-56, J.M. Harrisburg, LLC, regarding 4229 through 4299 Captain's Court. So we could bring up the... Please raise your hand on this one. All right. Okay. It should be Mr. Turner. All right, so let's bring up. Mr. Turner is here on behalf of the applicant. Tony, did you have your hand raised on this one? Wait, you're muted. Not on this one. Okay, so we'll demote you. I'm on the next one. Okay. And then do we have anyone else for this one? If anyone's in the audience and wants to speak on captain's court, please raise their hand now. Okay. Well, Mr. Turner, it looks like there is no opposition today, so you'll be the first on the agenda. There is that one letter in opposition that will be addressed. just so everyone in the audience knows I will be recusing oh wait is that Ms. Madden yes are you here to speak about this application no no okay perfect we'll demote you I think some of the hands came down slower than I was Ms. Madden we'll bring you back up when that case is called apologize first go around we were too slow the second time we were too fast but you will have an opportunity to speak on your case. This case will be listed on the docket with no opposition. It will be called first. We'll go ahead and mocha now in this return until that case is called. I will be recusing from this case. Mr. Glover will be chairing this particular case. The next case is PLM VOA 20-57, Anderson Communities, Inc. This is item number two on page two regarding 3330 Todd's Road. And if we could bring up the applicants, Mr. Strong and Mr. Barrett. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak regarding 3,330 Todd's Road? If you could please raise your hand at this time. Since we have another phone caller now, I'll just point out again, if you're on the phone and you'd like to raise your hand, you can do so by eating star nine. And then we can list you on the particular case you want to speak to, if you do want to speak today. All right, gentlemen. Well, there was one letter in opposition that is hoping you guys have received that now. John, did you receive that letter? A letter of opposition? We had a letter of support. I don't believe, I don't know that I've seen an opposition letter. Yeah, there was an email I just sent to you, John. Yeah, Tracy Wade just sent you an email, John. Let me double check, okay. I believe it's from one of the neighbors on Cutter Lane, and they've expressed concerns Okay, I do see that now. Okay, well, we're going to put this on the non, I guess I'm going to start with the consent document. More or less the consent document, because there's no one here in the audience that wants to speak in opposition. But you do look at those letters, gentlemen, just to make sure in case anyone from the board has any questions, and then confirm you both were sworn in earlier. I was, yes. Yes, I was. We'll put you down, demote you now, and then we'll have you guys call up in a few minutes. Can you forward that to me? Yeah. Okay, so now we're moving on to the conditional use appeals, and the first one is on page two, number B, item D, conditional use appeal for PLNB. 20-53 Sandra Clements regarding 3420 Crimson King Court. Ms. Clements can raise your hand. All right. All right we will bring you bringing you up now and is there anyone in opposition or in opposition or support of this application in the audience? All right, we have one hand raised. This is for phone number one. It's a 1601. We're going to allow you to talk now. Can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you. I just had to unmute. Okay, that's no problem. And so this is for telephone number ending a 1601. If you would give us your name, we can make that change in the system. Okay. My name is Sarah, S-A-R-A, last name Grant, G-R-A-N-T, and I'm at 3416 Crimson King Court. Thank you, ma'am. And are you here in support or opposition? Neither. Actually, I just wanted to ask a couple questions and request that some things might be added to the condition of the permit. Okay, in that case, I'm going to mark that as not necessarily hard opposition, but we will need to hear from you then. Were you sworn in earlier? I was not. Okay, would you please raise your right hand and repeat after me? I swear I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. there we go thank you very much um and then uh so we're going to go ahead and devote you right now miss grant um miss clements we're going to go ahead if you can unmute yourself you see you're still muted sandra you're there we go perfect so um we're going to have your case to be heard you'll be the first case that we hear today um after we go through the consent agenda um and you were sworn in earlier yes thank you ma'am well we look forward to hear from you a few minutes all right thank you so we will now devote you and then we're going to bring up uh plnboa 20-54 nathan t cook regarding 140 Victory Avenue. So, Mr. Cook, we're going to bring you up. There is one letter in opposition for this one. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this matter? We have Ms. Madden. Okay, so, Mr. Cook, were you sworn in earlier? Yes. Thank you, sir. and Ms. Madden are you here oh you're muted okay there we go can we get your full name for the record Debra Madden 137 and are you here in support or opposition of this application I have a question about this is this going to be for a duplex rental property Well, what we're going to do is questions will come later. So were you sworn in earlier? No. Okay, would you raise your right hand for me? You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you very much, ma'am. So what we're going to do is we're going to put this case to be heard. And when we call your case, you can then get an opportunity to ask questions at that time. Thank you. So we're going to devote you both right now. Thank you very much. And this is going to bring us to item number three on page three, PLNBOA 20-55, Tate's Creek Christian Church, regarding 3150 Tate's Creek Road. So we're going to, Francis, we're promoting you. If there's anyone else who wants to be heard on this case, if you could raise your hand for us. All right, I don't see anybody. Francis, if you could turn on your microphone and video. Frances Kerr, is your video and microphone, are they muted and turned off? Hello? No. I'm on two Zoom meetings. I had the one muted, I thought. This one muted. Okay. Yeah, so did we test her video that was working earlier? Okay, if you could turn your video on for us. I don't think that she's an applicant. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Are you here to speak on behalf of this matter? Well, yes. are you a neighbor or yes oh okay well do we have an applicant for this case mr pennell is the applicant for this case he is in the meeting um it looks like he needs to be promoted okay all right ma'am if you can sit tight for us for a second were you sworn in earlier miss kerr yes okay perfect well in that case we're going to devote you again sorry can we ask miss kerr which case she's here for because i think her hand came up a little bit before we called this i'm not sure which case are you here on this curve 140 victory oh okay um so that one's going to be heard and so we're going to demote you now we're going to mark that as the case she wants to be heard on um and then we'll bring up the church and mr all right here hello hello were you sworn in today yes and what is your and then um i don't see anyone else in the audience that wants to speak on this so we will have you on the consent docket i can't recall you're probably case number three to be heard okay thank you very much thank you Okay, so now we're going to PLN BOA 20-58 Joseph Fenwick regarding 2064 Rebel Road. Mr. Fenwick, alright, we've got you. Is there anyone here to speak to the 2064 Rebel Road? Alright, we have one hand raised. Lindsey, we're going to promote you right now. hello hello um could you lindsey could you give us your full name for the record yes it's uh lindsey l-i-n-d-s-e-y uh luker l-u-k-e-r okay and you're here on the river road matter yes were you sworn in earlier yes perfect um are you here in opposition or in support. In support. Okay, perfect. What we're going to do is we're going to demote you right now, Lindsey, and then Mr. Finwick, you are here. Were you sworn in earlier, Mr. Finwick? I think I missed that, actually. Okay, please, you please raise your right hand for me. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you very much, sir. Your case, since it's recommended for disapproval, will be heard today, so you will be the last case that we hear this afternoon. We will now demote you at this time. And that brings us back to PLNBOA 20-56, JN Harrisburg Road, LLC, regarding 4229 and 42299 Captain's Court. At this point, Mr. Glover, I will hand the chairman's position over to you so you can run this case. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Mr. Turner, are you with us? Darby Turner? Darby, you're still muted. Good afternoon. Darby, this is your case. You're representing J.N. Harrodsburg, LLC. Is that correct? That is correct. Tell us about this project. Well, this is for the staff report. This is a subdivision plan that has already been approved and filed. There was a history related to a request for waivers. The three streets immediately above this are basically had the same waiver request approved in the 1990s, early 1990s. And what that waiver did is essentially moved the building line from being measured from back of sidewalk to edge of street, thereby adding additional, the building line essentially moved forward relative to the street and sidewalk. What we are trying to do is basically create more. We're basically asking for a variance for the whole street to change the building, the front yard set back from 30 feet to 20 feet, which would be consistent with the existing subdivision that developed to the north. the north. We are in acceptance. The staff report I think recommended approval and we have on the condition that we also move the back setback from 10 feet to 20 feet. So basically you move in the building billable area 10 feet closer to the street. The backyards of particularly the northern side of this subdivision, I guess it'd be the northwest side, have a significant tree line running down them and some significant birming that is there on many of the lots, which would result in very little usable backyard. And so this effort is, the variance request is to, again, move the buildable area 10 feet closer to the street, thereby increasing the backyards of these homes to a much more usable area and also consistent with the existing neighborhood. it. So that's what we have reviewed. The letter that was just sent to me from Barbara Taylor, and I talked to Ms. Taylor actually during the waiver process, and it looks to be from her letter, her main concern is that the backyards be increased by the 10 feet. So I think we are doing that. She asked a question about front loading garages, and I don't know the answer to that. Concern about double parking and that sort of thing on the Captain's Court Street. And my only response to that is that went through the subdivision process and was approved in that nature. And it's not really, not sure how the moving the buildable area 10 feet closer to the street impacts that at all. So, but the main concern of a larger backyard, I think we have addressed. Does your request cover the houses on both sides of Captain's Court or just the northwest side? No, both sides to make the street be consistent. Yeah. Okay. And consistent with the Palomar. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Turner from the board members? Yes. Mr. Turner, this is Mr. Clark. Am I correct in saying that the drone and those streets parallel to this street is all those houses are 20 feet from the sidewalk? Is that correct? Yes. I think I'm going to answer that with a qualified yes. I think so. They were built in accordance with a waiver that would have produced either that result or close to that result. Right. Because they were measured differently. Right. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Turner while we've got him here? There was one letter in opposition. Did you get a chance to see that, Mr. Turner? Yes, that's what I addressed, the letter from Ms. Taylor. Oh, that was from Ms. Taylor. Okay. Yes. All right. It was an email. Yes. Yes. Any other questions for Mr. Turner about this application? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Clark. I recommend approval of PLNBOA 20-56 JN Harrisburg LLC. Request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 to 20 feet in order to construct a new house on each of the 33 lots in a single family residential zone on property located at 4229-4999 Captain's Court. based on the recommendations of staff and subject to the conditions that are the the conditions that are listed I think there were three conditions thank you Mr. Clark is there a second I second the motion thank you Ms. Whitman I did notice there was nothing in the conditions that address the backyard was there supposed to be there is yeah condition number two reads that minimum rear yard shall be 20 feet for each lot oh I see front and rear gotcha okay fair enough motion's been made and seconded all in favor please raise your right hand it looks like we have six in favor and Mr. Gross is absent your motion carries the project is approved good luck with your development Very good. Thank you all very much. Good to see you. We'll be demoting Mr. Brandon. Brandon, I turn it back over to you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay, so that brings us to our next case to be heard, not to be heard, but our next case on the agenda, which is PLNBOA 20-57 Anderson Communities, if you could bring Tony and John back up. Good afternoon, gentlemen. John, it looks like the staff has recommended approval of your application based upon the three conditions. Have you seen those? I have seen those, Mr. Chair. We do agree to those conditions. Thank you very much, sir. At this time, I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the board to see if they have any questions regarding the statute report or the application related to the request of the staff or the applicant at this time. I had one question. What are the setbacks in an R4? It's a 10 foot in the rear. 20 foot. 20 foot. Okay. Thank you. and mr uh strong you want to go ahead and address uh anything from the letter of opposition for the record certainly uh i reviewed the letter of opposition um kind of sounds like they've got more problems with just the development in general. I would like to point out that the building or the setbacks that are being affected by this variance are not the residential lots on either side of the triangle-shaped development. It's only affecting the boundary between the new development and the Andover Baptist Church property. then let me ask about the um lot number four i thought that was that was part of the request it is uh but it is also owned by the applicant those are proposed sites that's not a it's not a new resident so anybody who purchases it will be fully aware of the all of the setbacks right and the setback the proposed setback is shown by that heavy dotted line is that what your site plan shows that's correct yes okay thank you I don't want to rush anyone, but does anyone else have any questions or comments? I don't have any more questions. I thought this was a reasonable proposal and a reasonable request. It looks like a compromise request between the two zones since this is property that's split zone. I'm in favor of it. All right. Well, that sounds like an endorsement for a motion. Well, I'm ready to make one if you're ready to hear it. I'm ready to hear it. Mr. Chair, I move the approval of PLN VOA 20-57 Anderson Communities, Inc. request for a variance to reduce the required setback for a yard adjacent to a more restrictive zone where the proposed development abuts the existing agricultural zone from 25 feet to 15 feet on a split zone property. and high-density apartment R4 agricultural urban AU zones on a property located at 3330 Todd's Road for the reasons stated in the staff report and subject to the three conditions therein. Thank you. Do we have a second? I second the motion. All right, so I've got Mr. Glover's motion with Mr. Whitman seconding. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please raise your hand if you are in favor. I show this with unanimous. Good luck to your project, gentlemen. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. We're going to skip over the next two cases. Those will be heard. And we're going to move to page 3, number 3, PLNBOA 20-55, Cates Creek Christian Church, regarding 3150 Cates Creek Road. So, Mr. Pinnell, we're going to promote you in a second after we move other people from the panel. You should go. There you go. Thank you, sir. You can unmute yourself for us. There we go. All right. If you could, could you state with your relationship with the church? Yes, I am the executive minister of the church. Thank you, sir. The staff has recommended approval. They based that approval on six conditions. Have you read those? I have. You agree to abide by those? I do. Thank you, sir. At this point, I'm going to open it up to the board members if they have any questions for the applicant or for staff. All right. I see none. Does anyone want to make a motion to stop? I move for approval of PLN VOA 20-55 Tates Creek Christian Church's request for conditional use to establish a child care center accessory to a place of religious assembly in a single family residential zone on property located at 31 50 tates creek road based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the six positions as listed thank you miss carter do i have a second second mr clark second so i've got a first from carter second from clark any discussion on the motion all right seeing none hearing none i will call a vote you can please raise your hand and let the record show that it was unanimous. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pinnell, we will now devote you. Do love your project. Thank you very much. And that is the last of the cases on the consent docket. We are now going to move to matters to be heard, which will bring us to page two, item D, Mission of Use Appeals, number one, PLM BOA 20-53 regarding 3420 Crimson King Court. Ms. Clements, we're going to promote you. And then, was it Sarah Grant? Yeah. And then Ms. Grant, we're going to give you an opportunity to speak also. Okay. Okay. And Ms. Grant, you're on mute right now. And so you, Ms. Clinton, you can unmute yourself. Okay. I'm unmuted. Okay. Unmuted. All right. Before we start with hearing from everybody, I will note that the staff has recommended approval of your conditional use appeal. I mean, your conditional use permit. The staff made that recommendation based upon three conditions. Have you seen those? Yes. Are you willing to abide by those? Yes, absolutely. All right, perfect. Well, since we do have someone here in the audience who'd like to hear more about this application, what I would recommend is you give us an overview of what you want to do. Well, I just want to do part-time. I'm a Pilates teacher, and I want to teach my clients one-on-one inside my home. And I would only have up to three a day, and I teach people individually. They would park in my driveway and enter through the back of my house. and my sessions last about 50 minutes. So that's the whole thing, I guess. Okay. And just for the record, it looks like your driveway is large enough to be able to accommodate your car plus your client's car. Yes. What I was planning on doing is parking my cars in the back driveway so my clients could park just on the front end or even in the empty cul-de-sac. We've got a huge cul-de-sac at the end with no houses. So, I mean, if I had to, you know, they could park down at the end. Okay. I'm sure your neighbors would probably prefer the driveway. Yes, that's what I thought. I just don't want to be a bother to my neighbors whatsoever. And then you plan on having one client at a time? Yes. Yes, and all my clients are middle-aged women. I mean, we're all pretty quiet. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions or comments for the applicant before I allow Ms. Grant an opportunity to ask questions? All right. Well, thank you. I see none. So, Ms. Grant, are you still there with us? I am, yes. And okay, so now you have the opportunity to be heard. Okay, thank you. Hi, Sandra. Hi, Sandra. Hi, Sarah. I'm next door to Sandra. I have just a few questions. And I was wondering if some of the conditions that were brought up, I actually, I don't know if you all received the letter, the photocopy of the picture of the letter that I sent down to you. It was, Sandra, it was the letter that you sent out to us as neighbors. Yes. It does list a few things in there. And I was just wondering if those conditions could be, if you would be willing. Would you like us to share that on the screen? Yeah. If you bear with us for a second, we can get that pulled up so that everyone can see it. Tracy, can you do that or Stephanie? Sure. Thank you. I mean, I think everything is already been stated except for the hours that you'll be teaching, which is you have Monday through Thursday, possibly some Friday, and it's between 10 and 1. Yes. Okay. Well, I don't know. Let me ask you, Mr. That information was listed on the application. if you look on the back page it looks like she's got three individuals per day no more than six to eight she's got the hours listed in there but I don't see where there is a condition Okay, so Ms. Gray, if you look at condition number one on our potential approval, it says the home-based business shall be operating in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan, which we'd be incorporating the items that she put in her application. Let's see here. And she does, so I'm going to look at your, so I will make sure my client's parking the driveway. Yeah, so number four on her application says she'll do that. Okay. And right from the back is also shown on number four of her application. All instructions. Well, inside her house, that is included. And then she also includes the same hours. So that is incorporated into the condition, even though they're not technically spelled out individually. I want to ask our legal counsel, Ms. Jones, is that number one adequate to incorporate the conditions and the application on the second page? On our way. Okay, thank you. Yeah. It's adequate because the condition says that it'll be in accordance with the submitted application materials on the site plan. Okay, so Ms. Grant, yes, it looks like that. all those items you underline or cover in the condition number one by reference to the application okay um could i just make a comment here sure okay um you know i think it's it sounds like it's going to be fine i just don't know for sure um because sandra's driveway is on my you know on my side of my house um i think it'll be fine but you know if something comes up it's an issue you know how do i deal with that if if she is in violation of our approval today regarding um the parking the visitation to sarah you will get with uh zoning enforcement which is in the planning office and then they will uh they will then have somebody investigate to make sure uh sondra is in compliance with the condition of his planning okay by calling 311 or calling the planning office directly and and you would make a complaint at that time you would say that that she is not in compliance with the conditions um that were outlined in her application she's not operating as she said she would and then we will have a zoning enforcement officer investigate your claim. And then if there's a dispute between the zoning officer, you or Sandra, at that point, it'll come back before us. Ms. Grant, I would suggest to you that your first act would be to talk to your neighbor before you make a complaint to the city. Does that answer your question, Ms. Grant? Yes, it did. Thank you. Okay. Do you have any more questions? No, I think that's it. Thank you, ma'am. Sandra, do you have anything to add? No, I just, I don't want to be a bother to my neighbors at all. I want to comply with all the rules. Yes, we appreciate that. Does anyone from the committee have any questions or comments at this time or is someone ready to make a motion? mr chair i'll move for approval of plnboa 20-53 senator clements request for a conditional use permit for a home-based business personal pilates instruction in a single family residential zone at 3420 crimson king court based on the stance recommendation and the three conditions as listed so moved i'll second so mr clark made a motion mr glover seconded any comments or discussion of the motion hearing none that i will put it to a vote please your raise your right hand if you are in favor. I show it being unanimous. Thank you very much, everybody. Good luck with your project. And hopefully we won't see you again. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you so much. You're welcome. So this is going to bring us to our next case to be heard. And this is Nathan Cook's case. So I am on page two, item D, number two, PLN VOA 20-54 Nathan T. Cook regarding 140 Victory Avenue. We had one letter in opposition. I believe we have a couple neighbors in attendance also. So give us a second while we bring everybody up. And I will also note for the audience and for the record that Mr. Cook has withdrawn his administrative appeal. So we will only be discussing the conditional use portion. Mr. Cook, if you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Thank you, sir. At this time, the staff has recommended approval, and that approval was based upon three conditions. Have you seen those? Yes. And you agree to abide by those? I agree, yes. All right. Thank you, sir. What I'm going to recommend we do now is, given the fact that we do have some people who want to speak on this application, and there was a letter in opposition. Did you see a copy of that letter? I did. I just got it, yes, and right over it. Perfect. What I'd like you to do is talk about your project, and if you could address any concerns that you think need to be addressed in the letters. And then once you get an opportunity to speak, some of the board members may ask you questions, and then we'll give your neighbors a chance to speak. Okay. All right. So I'm Nathan Cook. This is my wife, Renee Eddington. And to clarify something for, I read this in the letter, we are, we're the owners and we occupy the property with our daughters. So right now it's a single family home. We bought it about four years ago and did a lot of work on the inside of it. We haven't gotten to the outside yet. So I know there's some places that do look kind of rough. But our project is where we had a garage, which was, we had torn down because it was in very bad structural condition. And our plan is kind of on that same footprint to build like a little accessory living quarters. And our main use for that is going to be a family friend who we won't charge rent or anything like that. He would live there if it works out. He has a terminal illness and our goal is to put him close to someone who can, you know, kind of look after him a little bit more. Right now, he is in a, he's in kind of a bad apartment that's not accessible. so ideally he would be closer and you know at some point when that doesn't work anymore for whatever reason it falls through it would just be general guest space like for instance for her parents who are also you know they're older but you know they need something a little more you know accessible and so the goal of this project is to have like a little living space and had you know you know bathroom facilities and you know like heat and cooling things like that but was also accessible so that those people, like our family friend and her parents, would be able to get in there and use that easier. Any other questions or anything about it? I don't have any more questions. I would say I'm going to go ahead and have Autumn if you could. This application is a little, I don't want to say complex, but it's not one we normally see. And so if you could give us a quick presentation also to run through the staff's reasoning for recommending approval and the conditions that you've proposed. Sure. I'll go ahead and share my screen. I don't know if it's really necessary to go through the full thing, but I will go ahead and pull it up just so we can go through it. What's really unique about this property is that it's a split zone property, meaning that it is, there's a boundary line between the B1 and the R2 zone splitting the property. About a distance of about 20 feet of the property has B1 zoning from the front to the rear, which is our neighborhood business zoning. The use on the lot is a use that's allowable in an R2 zone as a single family residence. living quarters are an accessory use in our residential zone. So the tricky part here is that the part where the pre-existing garage was located has the B1 zoning where living quarters are not a listed use. So we have a provision in our zoning ordinance where you can ask for a conditional use to extend the zoning boundary by 50 feet when you have a split zone property. so as we'll go ahead and just kind of go from the beginning here the applicant is requesting a conditional use to extend the r2 regulations into the b1 zone portion of property in order to construct living quarters item number two has been withdrawn so the property is located near the corner of victory avenue and kramer avenue they are directly adjacent to a church building here at the corner um to put this in perspective a little bit wilson's grocery is at this corner here here are an aerial and a street view of the subject property so this is the garage that is no longer existing which will be replaced with the structure containing living quarters so this is this is the zoning ordinance explaining the things that i just went over regarding the zoning boundary and extending the conditional use the regulations for the r2 zone into the b1 zone living quarters without cooking facilities and not rented for guests and employees are an accessory use in the R2 zone as they are in most of our residential zones. Skip over the kitchen facilities and dwelling unit because that portion of the application has been withdrawn. The applicant has said that they do not intend to have a kitchen after all. Real quickly I'm gonna go back to on condition number one shall not be rented that includes the overnight rentals airbnb other things fall within that correct as being prohibited yes okay and then going to um condition number two um we're going to keep no no kitchen facilities so the way it's written is the way we'll keep it yes okay yeah okay please proceed i just want to clarify the That's actually not the correct slide. There we go. So here's the site plan that was submitted showing the proposed structure at the rear of their lot. And then here's just a kind of a zoom in again showing where that structure will be located. We have recommended approval of the conditional use. We feel that the extension of the RC regulations is generally reasonable in this location and that shouldn't have an adverse impact on the subject or surrounding properties because the general vicinity is characterized largely by residential uses. and that is the principal use on this lot. So it's not, the B1 portion of this lot would not be viable for a B1 use. Extending the R2 zoning regulations will allow the entire lot to function more cohesively and to support that existing principal use. So we have recommended approval subject to the three conditions that we've discussed, that the unit shall not be rented and shall only be used by the property owner and their guests, that there shall not be kitchen facilities provided, kitchen facilities are defined in Article 1, and that all necessary permits and approvals be obtained prior to construction and occupancy. So the new residents can have sanitary facilities but no kitchen facilities? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for our audience at this time? Looks like Ms. Carter. Yeah. I can't tell from the diagram, the square footage on this. How large of an addition are we planning here? It looks like that is not fully dimensioned out on this drawing, so I'm not sure off the top of my head what that number is. That might be a good question for the applicant. They would be held to the zoning ordinance requirements for accessory structure sizes, that the unit, that the accessory structure cannot be more than 50 percent of the total square footage of the house, and that it can't exceed the lot coverage of the house, which obviously it's not given this drawing, but the square footage cannot exceed 50%. There's also a height restriction. It can't be any taller than the existing structure. So Mr. Yeah, I can weigh in on that. Excuse me? Brandon, I was asking, can the applicant answer that? Yeah, I was going to ask Mr. Cook if he could tell us what the square footage is and what his height and tension is. Yeah, it's going to be roughly 400 square foot. and the height was about 10 feet yeah it's not like multiple stories we're looking at one story yeah okay yeah any additional questions for the applicant or staff at this time let's like this question this is this is not directly related to this applicant but And I think the proposal sounds reasonable to me, but I was wondering, Alderman, if you can help me here, how difficult it is, would it be to get the zoning changed to move it to the edge of his property, the B1 zone, or rather the residential zone? How complicated would it be to move the zone to the edge of his property? So the provision in the ordinance that allows for the conditional use is sort of a relief valve to that situation. Doing that would require a full zone change, which would require a development plan and a lengthier process than what the Board of Adjustment provides. So this is sort of the... Yeah, Mr. Clark, I would guess if he did a zone change, this would not be approved until at least January or February. They'd probably have to hire an engineer, maybe an attorney. it would be a much more substantial process. Yeah, I understand that. I was thinking post our approval, not as part of this process, but in the future, that might be something that would clear this up for some other proposals that might come up. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm not sure if I have a question. Maybe I'm still not clear on it. So what we're proposing here is a 400, a separate building. It's about 400 feet. It's mostly bedroom and bathroom, but no kitchen facilities. Correct. You're saying it could only be, okay. Okay. I just, my broker realtor had, that just sounds misleading, to say the least, like that property from now on, you see that. anybody see that? How do they know that's not a legal rental structure or the, you know what I'm with? Yeah, we would, we would file a, the staff will file a land use restriction that will set forward. And I will say for any realtors out there, if you're looking to buy a place that's not clearly a duplex, always check with the city to make sure it's a conforming use because people will chop houses illegally. But yeah, so when they do a title examination, they would find the LUR of record that says it can only be used for this purpose. Okay. Go ahead, Chad. Yeah, I want to chime in here. I'm kind of, you know, I'm curious as well because I think as you drive by, it's going to look and appear as though an ADU is instead of a garage. And it is misleading and confusing, not, you know, I think to neighbors and others in the neighborhood. So, you know, what's to say you couldn't just add a kitchen after we're done here? That seems to be the common theme among all garages. So that is something that we deal with all over. Certainly. I agree. In this case, I think it's important to note that if they did not have the split zone lot, if they were in a typical residential zone, they would be allowed to have the accessory quarters without coming before you at all. Without a kitchen, the kitchen has been taken off of the table. That's a separate issue with related to ADUs, which are under consideration by urban county council. but I think it's important to note that the living quarters itself is something that most residents of Fayette County who live on a residential lot can have. The difference here is that it's a split zone lot. Yeah, from that perspective, my house is an R1. I could do a living quarters in my garage, but I couldn't have a kitchen. Correct. Gotcha. So, yeah. Okay. Does the driveway typically go right up to that? I would say that that's fairly typical. Yeah. A lot of the time, these living quarters are either in a basement or in an accessory structure. Okay. If you look at the lot, I can't imagine what else you'd put it, Jeff. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any more questions for staff and the applicant this time? Okay, well, I'm going to have Debra Madden, I'm going to have you speak first. I think that's right. Yes. My question was about also the driveway. That street is really narrow. And as it is now, the cars park on both sides. Even the houses that have driveways in them, they don't use the driveways. They pile up on the sides of the street for parking. And even one house, I think, has taken their, torn down the garage and made it a garden where there is no garage. So she has to park on the street. And that's one issue I have with this. the other one is the kitchen facilities in the addition where it could be used for a duplex and renting it out um yes so parking no parking yeah miss madden one condition is they cannot put a kitchen in this unit and the second one is they can't rent it to third parties and in both instances is if that is going on like we said in the last case that could be reported to uh uh zoning uh enforcement who would then investigate and figure out whether or not what was going on was allowable with our conditional use permit or yeah right yeah that's uh i think the street itself it's not like the other streets around Kenwick. Our street is, I think, if you measure it, it's actually probably the narrow of all of them. And the parking, you know, if you bring that now the family in there, where are they going to park? So I'll answer that this individual, he cannot drive a car. So there's no concern there. well future issues if you sold the house so again we're back to the same thing um where would people park if you know there's no driveway well i would say um miss baton um that would not change if this couple had two kids with two cars uh unfortunately that's not something that um it is not otherwise an issue with this was not granted i think it's a pretty standard problem um in certain areas of the city but your concern is noted i'm sure board members will uh discuss that amongst ourselves and contemplate that issue too yeah yeah it's not only issue of another family moving in it's the issue of traffic uh you know parking uh etc and its future uses, he could rent that out if he wanted to, I guess. No, he's not. He's prohibited from renting it out. It's only for family members and guests. Anything else, Ms. Madden? No, thank you. Thank you. You can stay on the line. We're going to demote you right now. And then, or not demote her, I mean just take it to Francis next. Can I just clarify one thing real quick? There is still a driveway that will fit two cars even after this, which is practically what we could get there before. We couldn't really park in the garage anyway, which is one of the reasons we had to tear it down. So we're not really losing any parking by doing this. Thank you, sir. Francis, you're up now. Are you still with us? Yes, yes. Can you hear me? Yes. I just wanted to, of course, some of the questions I had have been addressed. And I want to commend Nathan and your wife on what you're doing. I think, you know, for a friend, that's nice. Of course, my concern is the same about the renting and all that is has been, you know, dispelled. But I just, yes, you know, you just question what what can you know, I'm not I'm opposed to the additional dwelling units. I think our neighborhood is too dense as it is in parking, etc. But since this is not going to have the kitchen, I guess it won't be so detrimental to the neighborhood as I see additional dwelling units as being. So thank you for the time to speak and good luck with the project. I think we're just worried about future precedent of what it can set and do. Yeah, thank you, Ms. Kern. I understand completely the concern with the ADU, but this is not an ADU situation. This is an accessory dwelling unit that's currently allowed as long as there's not living quarters, as long as there's not a kitchen and it's not allowed to be rented. So that was my main concern. I look at the application also, but I think that personally I'm comfortable with the conditions for this application. And I feel much better now after learning about it. Yes. And that's, like I say, a very nice gesture you all are making. So thank you for my time to listen and speak. Thank you very much, ma'am. At this point, I'm going to go ahead and let's demote the audience. Let's mute them. And then I'm going to bring it back to the board. any further questions comments um or are we ready for a motion at this time yeah i can make a motion thank you sir okay mr chair i move we approve plnboa 20-54 nathan t Cook's request for a conditional use to extend the R2 zone regulations into the B1 zone portion of the property in order to construct living quarters accessory to the single family dwelling unit. Based on staff's two recommendations and the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? I'll second. Mr. Glover, I have a Chattanooga motion. Mr. Glover second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'm going to ask you to please raise your hand if you are in support of the motion. I show that it is unanimous. Good luck to your project. I hope it goes well. Thank you very much. I would recommend giving your neighbors and the fact they were here today I would recommend trying to keep them in the loop on what's going on to avoid any unnecessary angst for yourselves and for them. Thank you very much. Good luck. And this brings us to, I believe, the last case of the day, which is an appeal with a recommendation of disapproval. So, Autumn, I'm assuming you'll be ready to walk us through this one. Okay. Mr. Fenwick, we're going to promote you right now. There you are, sir. And my recollection is no one else is in the audience. We have no letters. No, Ms. Luthor is there. Okay. Ms. Luthor, please raise your hand. There we go. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to. And we have currently several members in the audience. And, of course, you're always welcome to listen to us. I can't imagine what else I'd want to do on a Monday afternoon. That's just nice. But if you want to speak on this particular application, if you could raise your hand, and we will mark you down. If not, we'll just let you continue to listen. okay and I believe Ms. Luker she was in support correct okay so what we're going to do Mr. Fenwick is we're going to have Autumn walk us through the reason the staff does not support your request then we'll give you an opportunity to speak then we'll give Ms. Luker an opportunity to speak we'll let Autumn do a quick summary you can do any kind of questions and during all of this, the panel at any time can interrupt and ask you questions, which sometimes happens. So with all that said, Autumn, we'll go ahead and let you commit to your presentation. All right. I will share my screen. All right. This application is a request for an administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory building from 690 square feet to 960 square feet in order to allow an in addition to an existing detached garage to remain as constructed in a single-family R1C zone at 2064 Rebel Road. The subject property is located to the southwest of the intersection of Southland Drive and Nicholasville Road, near the end of Rebel Road, here where the white arrow is pointing. The property abuts commercially zoned V1 property to the rear, and is surrounded by other single-family uses along Rebel Road. the zoning ordinance states that in residential zones accessory buildings cannot exceed 50 percent of the total square footage of the building to which they are accessory or 625 square feet whichever is greater this application is the result of a complaint to building inspection for work without a permit the applicant has indicated that while he is familiar with the permitting process he has an employee who was in charge of this project who was evidently not aware of that process and did not apply for the needed permit. So construction began without a permit and without the knowledge that the addition was too large. So according to the applicant, the project is about 50% complete now. Here is the site plan showing the existing garage here, and then the new addition in question here, and then there was also a new cupboard porch added. The addition is 384 square feet. The original garage was about 576 square feet. This is just a zoom in on that site plan. On the left here, you can see the original garage, and then on the right, you can see where the addition has been made and the covered porch addition has been made. So the original structure was about 576 square feet. The total allowable square footage for an accessory structure on this lot would be 690 square feet. So there could have been an addition of 114 square feet without going over the allowable size. But as I said, the addition that was constructed was 384 square feet. So, sorry? Autumn, real quick, that 384, does that include the screened in porch? It's not screened in, it's just covered. It does not include the covered porch. Okay. The applicant did submit several photos, so we'll go through those here. Here's a photo from the street. You can see sort of the new construction back here behind the original garage, and then here are just a couple more photos that were submitted showing the rear yard and again a view from the driveway. So staff has recommended disapproval of this application. All right. We've recommended disapproval because they're not special circumstances that justify the request. The general vicinity is characterized by single family homes with smaller accessory structures, which generally appear to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant did not provide compelling reasons for requiring the additional space in an accessory structure above and beyond what would be allowed by right. Number two, strict application of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land. They could construct a smaller addition to provide for some extra storage, or they could extend the, they could put an addition on the principal structure as well and still meet the zoning ordinance requirements. And the circumstances at hand are the result of actions that were taken by the applicant. The construction began without a permit, which could constitute a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. And we feel that approval of this request could result in the creation of a precedent for the forgiveness of noncompliance coupled with the lack of justification. and we feel that that could have a lasting effect on the immediate vicinity and on similar neighborhoods. So those are the reasons that staff has recommended disapproval, and I'm happy to answer any further questions that you all have. So I have a question for you. So is it the staff's position that if this were to come in as an application prior to this being done, you still would have recommended disapproval? I believe we would have with the lack of justification that was provided. I think that the recommendation would have been the same. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions from the board for Autumn? Or does the board want to see any of her slides for an additional period of time? Chad, you're on mute. Yeah, Autumn, can you just explain a little bit about the construction of a smaller, what that would have looked like, or just briefly go into that detail, had it been attached? Attached to the garage? Yes. So the applicant, the existing structure was about, let's see. Sorry. The existing structure was about 576 square feet. The total allowable size for an accessory structure for this property would be 690 square feet. That's half of the total square footage of the house. so that allows for 114 square feet that the applicant could have constructed. Anything beyond that would exceed the allowable size of an accessory structure. But that would be only attached to the home or could that? No, no. This is for the garage. That would be a 114 square foot addition to the original garage would have been acceptable. The applicant also would have the option to construct an addition to the house. the more house you have the more accessory building you can have so so you know he could have added his storage space to the house or if he had a larger house he could have add to the the accessory structure but what solution would he that makes sense because he doesn't expansion on his house and save the garage technically that's kind of what i'm getting at i mean what's what's the what's the loophole here if you added to the house enough to be able to to have this garage. The point of having an accessory structure is that it is accessory to the primary structure, so that's where that size limitation kicks in at 50%. That's ensuring that it's truly accessory to the principal structure. It looks, Autumn, to me like if his house was 540 square feet larger, he wouldn't have to have, he would meet the requirements and wouldn't have to go through this application process. That is correct. And of course, any addition to his house would have to the setback requirements and things like that. Sure, yeah. Any more questions for staff this time? All right, thank you very much. Mr. Finwick, you are now up and you probably want to explain why you didn't get your permit first. So I would like to explain that a little further more. So So the guy that works for me, Brent Peterson, had a diabetic ulcer on his foot. He does out in the field physical labor for me. So I brought him in so he could continue to work because he could not perform physical labor anymore. So I still take full responsibility. It's my fault. I own the company as well as Mr. Bill Hodges and my business partner. So when I brought him in, I tried to help him obtain permits for several jobs, do estimates, things like that. I was teaching him. So, because I was so busy, neglected to check. More of a misunderstanding is why we started this, which is at my personal home, without the permit. And I should have done better is the main reason. But anyway, that's why I brought him in to try to help. So, would you like me to continue about the thing? Yeah, now you can go on about everything else. Okay. So, as you see in the pictures, I think it's a nice structure. it's not taller than I mean we've been doing this for a long time it's not taller than the in my house it's not bigger than the footprint in my house I understand the the rule about being bigger than half of my house and I am going to add on to my house in the future but I know that doesn't help anything right now but it's 50 percent done because of a big misunderstanding and I would hate to have to remove it because it's expensive as we all know and my neighbors love it. It looks good in my backyard. It's barely noticeable from the street and I still have plenty of green space. I understand, I guess, the implications of the future, but I don't, I just would hate to have to tear it down. I don't think it's hurting anything and just wanted to take ownership of I screwed up from the beginning is why I didn't have a permit. We do several jobs with permits. I didn't do that on purpose. It was just, I should have checked on him more, But besides that, I would love to keep the structure because it's going to be a hassle if not. So financially and physically. Your company was the contractor on the project? Yes. Well, I think it's an unfortunate situation, Mr. Fenwick. The problem, of course, is that if we allow you to keep this structure and grant your application, then we're setting up a bad precedent for future applications that ask for forgiveness and not for permission. So that's the problem that the board has with this application, and I'm sure you understand that. I do, and I just, you know, I understand that. I'm asking for forgiveness. And I just wanted to put on the record that Mr. Hodge has been in business before I was born. I've been with him for 15 years, a business partner of him for two. We follow our rules. We go above and beyond. Usually this was just an honest misunderstanding that put me in a situation where I've got something that's not, you know, without your own acceptance allowable. So it wasn't misunderstanding. It was not anything other than that. And I, and I think we understand that as well. Sure. Okay. I mean, yeah, we do not relish making people tear things down. But the last two years we've had someone take half a story off a house, take down parts of a brick mason wall. You know, we do not relish that decision at all. And I think that's where Chad and Tommy were going earlier would be what are the chances of you adding on to your house? you know which sure rather than tearing down what you did just keep building uh well no i mean i think that's if i mean that for that yeah and and i would love to just not have to do that financially but if i have to obviously i don't i do not want to that's the last thing i want to do is tear that down so i guess i'll have some questions if um and i'd be and you know i don't know if you could get the permit. I'm not sure if you need any variances to do an extension, but I personally would prefer to, I'm blanking out here, continue this till next month, let you see if there is an alternative to tearing down your garage. It does not order in that garage to be torn down, but I'll open it up to the forward to see what their feelings are on that situation. For all I know, they say, no, let's just keep it. But I will likely not be voting for the garage to stay. I agree that this is painful, but I do want Mr. Fenwick to understand our position and that we have lots of people come before us whose contractor did not do what they were supposed to do so uh again i just go back to what when it's your primary profession you do feel the need maybe to hire you know hold it to a higher standard than we would even the public and we've had people you know where they could have had no way of knowing and they just trusted the contractor who didn't do it correctly have to do that but it does look good so i get the pain. Yeah, it's very usable space that we all enjoy in my court here, but like I said, I understand your office position as well. Mr. Fenwick, I have a question. If we deny your appeal, what's your plan? uh ask you guys a lot of questions so i'll figure out what i can do uh because uh you know i live in a neighborhood that's up and coming i guess you would say and i would like to maybe add a make it make it a story and a half or you know whatever i could do to uh make it a little bigger and obviously accommodate the addition of the garage accessory structure uh i my understanding is i may be incorrect is you can attach it with a condition space i'm not sure all the conditions of that but or meet the requirements of the square footage my uh my understanding of the of the regs ordinance and my mathematical calculations tell me that you could add on to your house a 540 foot addition and that would get you within that would get your garage within the 50 percent limitation on accessory structures so and if I and if that's incorrect I maybe the staff can help me or help you or help us explain what your options are but I'd say you probably need to talk further with staff about what to do about that. And I, and I agree with Mr. Gross. I don't mind postponing this or continuing this case till, till next month to give you a chance to talk with staff about what you can do. Okay. Appreciate that. Yeah, I think I'd chime in as well. I mean, you know, this is the workaround, but you know, I think the only option you're leaving us with is, is to, you know, we're not going to set a precedent here and, or this will set a precedent and we're not, we're not going to vote for that. So I'm willing to, to, to move for a little, for a work around in a way or give you some time at least to think about what you want to do. Would the staff have any objections to the continuous continuance for 30 days? My question, I guess, is if the intent is that Mr. Fenwick would construct an addition to his house in order to allow for the structure to meet the 50%, he would no longer need your approval. Correct. So he could do that if he were to disapprove the application regardless. Okay. If he's going to do it. So the staff's position is if we were to deny his application, he could still go before the billing inspection and you guys and work out a way to do a house that would make this comply and you guys would give him a little breather in before he started tearing things down? I think that if he were ready to move forward with an addition at this time, which I think is a lot to put on an applicant on the spur of the moment like this, but that if he were ready to do that and to file a permit, then yes, we would give him some extra time before he had to tear down the structure. Of course, that is necessitated by him doing that in a timely manner. We wouldn't want it to have been some kind of workaround, certainly. I'm just a little hesitant to weight anything on someone doing an addition. Let me ask you this, Autumn. Would the staff's position be we prefer a denial or a continuance? I think that's really up to you all. yeah okay that's fine yeah if the staff is never thinking i'm comfortable it just seems like to me that even if mr finwick decides to to add to his house this this request is is then is then moot but regardless it seems like to me that we would the first step would be to deny this and then the staff could could then work with mr finwick and a plan to increase the size of his house, then the grudge would be contingent upon that. And Mr. Clark, I'm comfortable with that. From listening to staff, it appears that staff would be willing to entertain such a proposition, even if we were to deny the application today. I have a question for Mr. Fenwick. is there any possibility of of moving a wall to the um reducing the side with size of the addition with just the moving the wall uh that that is a question i have i appreciate you bringing that up so i was wondering if there was another way of doing it if i were to insert lvl beams and make it a covered space and just make the storage the actual footprint of the storage space now a lot smaller to the 114 square foot and the rest just a covered space to join the other covered space i would definitely that would be my cheapest route i'd be able to do that i'll still get a little bit of storage space and i would just enjoy more covered areas so yes that was my next question and i think that would be i think that goes into more discussions with the staff on items even if we were to deny the application that could still occur miss with that makes sense to me yeah yeah i understand that but i just sitting here looking at the the addition and I thought if he's not if it's not completed that that might be a solution for him and I was wanted to get Autumn's feedback on whether he could do what whether he would be permitted to do what he's talking about doing with moving the wall yes yes as long as the enclosed square footage was reduced to 690 square feet total yeah I thought so okay thank you for bringing that up that was my next question that's probably the best option so so can I ask the question so if I were to do that and then later on add to my house that would allow me to enclose that space then I would just file for another permit right you know on that same okay all right if you uh if you if you add it to your house if you add in a sufficient uh square footage to your house, then you probably wouldn't need our permission to cover that space that you've already built. Okay. All right. Thank you. It sounds like we need a permit, Tommy. Yeah. Yeah. You wouldn't need to come back before us. Mr. Glover's bottom, he's not going to have to remove the footers if he were to open that space into a covered porch. That's correct. Okay. so can i ask one more question i mean what what are the actual timelines i mean it's going to be winter time uh i will obviously get the redraw and submit it to you guys but is there an actual deadline i mean how does that work does somebody come in so if this yeah we you would get with autumn and planning staff and they would work with you on a timeline and also it's a building inspector who you've dealt with as well would probably be involved in that. Okay. As long as it's a reasonable timeline, we would not see you again. Okay. So if denied, my next step would be to redraw it, to create a covered space with a smaller storage area to meet the 114 square foot and then submit it to Autumn and building inspector. Correct? Building. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm going to let Ms. Luker speak. So she's been on the phone waiting patiently with us. If you'd like to unmute yourself, if you want to add anything to the conversation. I'm the direct next door neighbor to this property. And after talk, I think you guys have come to a pretty good resolution here. And I really appreciate you all's need to have these rules and to make sure that we don't have eyesores in this area. As Joey said before, we have quite a few houses in the neighborhood that have gone from this 1,200 square foot size to like a 3,000 square foot size. So I just did want to say that Joe's property does look nice. It doesn't look out, you know, the garage didn't look out of place. I think I'm the only homeowner that can see that last couple feet of the garage. So I just wanted to let you guys know that it wasn't in any way impeding my enjoyment of my property or my sight lines. But I think you guys have come to kind of an agreement about your, you know, you can't set the precedent for this to happen. So I understand that. So I appreciate your all's time. Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate you staying with us today and being part of the process. Thanks. Okay. With all that being said, I guess I'm ready to move for a motion from somebody. It sounds like we're ready to rock and roll. Well, Mr. Chair, with unhappily, I will make the motion to deny the PLN BOA 20-56 Joseph Fenway's request for administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory building from 690 square feet to 960 square feet in order to add an addition to an existing attached garage to remain as constructed in a single family residential zone on property located at 2064 rebel road based on the staff's recommendation thank you sir and just to clarify it was application number 58 not 56 sorry you're fine i have a motion do i have a second i'll second uh mr glover seconds i made discussion of the motion seeing none i will bring it to a vote please raise your hand if you are in favor of mr clark's motion i showed that being unanimous uh mr finwick you'll see you get with autumn uh and then put pencil to paper and you guys come up with a resolution okay thank you all for your Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Good luck. All right. Thanks. Okay. That takes care of us through all the cases today. The cases actually almost took less time than the intro, but we're getting better. So we've got, let's see here, board items. Any items a board member wants to discuss? Ms. Whitman? I've been thinking ever since our last board meeting that we're getting several of these cases where people haven't gotten permits. And I think sometimes it's truly that they don't know to do that. And I would like to suggest to the planning staff that they do a campaign on, get your permit before you build. It's kind of like one of the utility companies that says call us before you dig. Maybe that would save us a lot of time and energy and staff a lot of time and energy if we did that and maybe avoid some of the unhappiness that people have and financial problem that they have with having to remove. So I would like to suggest that to the planning staff. Well, fortunately, Ms. Wade is here with us. So it has been noted and she can take it to her bosses. But I think that's a great idea. You're right. I mean, a lot of people, and even if you fake, you know, a permit, you're not sure exactly when you need a permit. Like, for example, if you're just changing out your bathroom and changing out your toilet and your sink, you may not need one. But if you put up a new wall, you may need one. And so it's sometimes for the layperson, and they rely upon the general contractors, and so it doesn't always work. I think that's a great idea. Oh, okay, gotcha. Otherwise, I get reaper. I think that's a great idea. We'll talk with our one-stop shop coordinator, Craig, then. Because certainly that would help building inspection as well. That's right. Yeah. Look at Ms. Whitman. Doesn't talk all day and comes with a great idea. I only talk when I have something to say. Good for you. And that's for you, Brandon. Yeah, you may have. Any other board items? I have a question perhaps for staff several months ago we heard a case about an eight foot brick wall that was on the corner of Chenowee and I think maybe Cochran or someplace like that I drive by that place often and still see the brick wall I think it was in court and I wonder if there's any update that you all can share with us Ms. Jones that's going to join us, I think. And Ms. Jones, let me know if you think we need to go into closed session for this, or you want to be on the record. I don't think we need to go into closed session. It is still in court. We've been working for some time with the property owner about trying to come up with a resolution that would allow both building inspection to be happy that they are in compliance with the ordinance and for them to take down part of the wall in the front yard that is not in compliance. Unfortunately, after several renditions of that, it's become apparent that whatever building inspection is okay with is probably not going to get done. So recently, well, let me back up for one minute. And the courts were not meeting due to COVID earlier in the year. When they came back online, they were catching up. Once they caught up, they did recently issue show-call stockets, which are things the different divisions of the court issue for cases that have been sitting for some time. So there was a little longer process than that. we tried to get the court to go ahead and just dismiss it which would mean we could go ahead with enforcement of getting that taken care of however the court left it on the docket so we will be obtaining a briefing schedule from the courts and briefing that matter for a decision thank you miss jones any questions for miss jones that no thank you that answered my question um and i will mention everyone just so everyone is aware we were another action was brought against us related to the greenhouse um on richmond road it's but i don't know what the okay well so it was filed there is an issue going on with with whether it's been served jones do you have we haven't been served that's all i'm gonna say okay so that one is in the core system um and so um but there are any other questions for uh or anything any board members want to bring Yep. I will say this year, Tommy gets Veterans Day off from working with us in the afternoon. So, Tommy, do you have anything planned for Veterans Day? You're talking about Suckers and Losers Day? Yeah. I think only one person would phrase it that way. I don't have anything special planned. It's the same sacred holiday it's always been. Yeah. Well, I hope you enjoy it this year. Yeah, thank you. I will say for Mr. Clark, my daughter picked up her trumpet today. So she's taking up the trumpet as her musical instrument. All right. Very good. Yes. Congratulations. Yeah, I thought you'd enjoy it. It's not too bad. It fits her personality. She's a little like me. Like she said, clarinet, that's too soft. I want something loud and boisterous. And we're all happy she's in your household. the flute the flute is where you should win that's right um autumn does the staff have anything all right well our next meeting is going to be december 14th 2020 and 1 30 p.m once again everyone we are in a red zone with covid right now in lexington so please wear your mask wash your hands keep you and your family and your loved ones safe um and enjoy your thanksgiving we'll see you guys in december thank you very much we are adjourned Thank you.