# Board of Adjustment - December 14, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 14, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5262 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5262?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-12-14 - **Last revised**: December 14, 2020 - **Length**: 36,262 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 held a video teleconference meeting on December 14, 2020, at 1:30 PM, presided over by Thomas Glover. The meeting included seven agenda items, with the board taking eight motions and votes throughout the session. Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting. The agenda covered standard board business including approval of previous meeting minutes, a public hearing on zoning appeals with various outcomes, board items, staff items, and scheduling of the next meeting date. ## Attendance **Present:** Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Walker, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham **Absent:** Branden Gross **Late:** Joan Whitman, Chad Needham ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of November 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes** [timestamp: 0:11:28] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Chad Walker. The minutes were approved unanimously with 4 ayes and 0 nays. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Chad Walker. **PLN-BOA-20-00052: KEITH NATIONAL CORPORATION Variance** [timestamp: 1:00:00] Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Raquel Carter. A variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman. The variance is subject to three amended conditions as submitted by the applicant. **PLN-BOA-20-00059: CENTRAL EQUIPMENT Variance** [timestamp: 0:52:25] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Raquel Carter. A variance to reduce the number of required trees from two to zero passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. The variance is subject to three conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-20-00061: KNOCKOUT DEVELOPMENT Variance** [timestamp: 0:58:45] Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Harry Clarke. A variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.70 passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. The variance is subject to two conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-20-00064: ROMANY MARKET, LLC Variances** [timestamp: 1:25:10] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Joan Whitman. Variances to reduce the side yard setback and landscape buffer passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. The variances are subject to three conditions as listed. **PLN-BOA-20-00063: EASTERN AVE SOBER LIVING Variance** [timestamp: 1:49:23] Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Chad Walker. A variance to increase allowable lot coverage from 25% to 47% failed unanimously with 0 ayes and 5 nays. All members voted against: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-20-00060: SOUTHERN HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Appeal** [timestamp: 3:29:43] Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Joan Whitman. A third-party appeal to contest the issuance of a Paving Permit failed with 4 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Joan Whitman. Voting against: Harry Clarke. **PLN-BOA-20-00065: LISA GANNOE Appeal** [timestamp: 5:04:44] Motion by Joan Whitman, seconded by Chad Needham. A third-party appeal to contest the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy failed with 4 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Joan Whitman. Voting against: Harry Clarke. ## Public Comment Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 1:03:49] addressed concerns regarding the Romany Market, LLC variance request. She expressed concerns about stormwater issues and tree canopy requirements related to the variance. **Andy Mead** [timestamp: 2:38:29] spoke on behalf of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association regarding an appeal. He expressed concerns about increased traffic on Edgemore Drive resulting from a paving permit that had been issued for the bank property. ## Contested Items The meeting included two contested matters that were brought before the board for resolution. **Southern Heights Neighborhood Association Appeal** The Southern Heights Neighborhood Association appealed the issuance of a paving permit. The association's opposition centered on concerns about increased traffic resulting from the permitted work. After consideration of the appeal, the board denied it, allowing the paving permit to remain in effect. **Lisa Gannoe Appeal** Lisa Gannoe appealed the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. However, the board determined the appeal was moot because a permanent certificate of occupancy had subsequently been issued. As a result, the procedural dispute over the temporary certificate became no longer actionable. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Thomas Glover at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference [timestamp: 00:00]. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:11:28] The minutes from the November 9, 2020 meeting were presented for approval. Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, and Chad Walker participated in the discussion of these minutes. The minutes were approved without noted objections or amendments. ## Public Hearing on Zoning Appeals [timestamp: 0:14:18] The meeting included a public hearing on zoning appeals, during which various zoning matters were considered. The hearing addressed multiple variance requests and third-party appeals. **Key Speakers** The discussion was led by Thomas Glover and Autumn Goderwis. **Scope of Hearing** The zoning appeals hearing covered: - Variance requests - Third-party appeals **Outcome** Various outcomes were reached on the appeals presented, with decisions made on individual cases as they were heard during the public hearing process. ## Board Items [timestamp: 5:06:19] Thomas Glover, serving as Chair, opened this agenda item by announcing that Board members could present any items they wished to discuss at this time. This segment was designated as informational in nature, providing an opportunity for Board members to raise matters for consideration. No additional presentations or discussions were recorded during this portion of the meeting. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 5:06:19] Thomas Glover announced that the floor was open for any items that staff members wished to present at this time. This agenda item was designated as an informational discussion point to allow staff the opportunity to raise matters for consideration by the body. No additional details regarding specific staff presentations or outcomes were recorded for this agenda item. ## Next Meeting Date The next meeting was scheduled for January 11, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. [timestamp: 5:06:19] Thomas Glover announced this date to the group. This announcement was informational in nature, providing attendees with the timing for the subsequent meeting. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Chair Thomas Glover at approximately 5:06:19. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of the minutes of the November 9, 2020 meeting - **PLN-BOA-20-00052** — passed (5-0): Variance for KEITH NATIONAL CORPORATION to reduce the required front yard setback from 20’ to 10’ - **PLN-BOA-20-00059** — passed (5-0): Variance for CENTRAL EQUIPMENT to reduce the number of trees required from two to zero - **PLN-BOA-20-00061** — passed (5-0): Variance for KNOCKOUT DEVELOPMENT to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.70 - **PLN-BOA-20-00064** — passed (5-0): Variances for ROMANY MARKET, LLC to reduce the side yard setback and landscape buffer - **PLN-BOA-20-00063** — failed (0-5): Variance for EASTERN AVE SOBER LIVING to increase the allowable lot coverage from 25% to 47% - **PLN-BOA-20-00060** — failed (4-1): Third party appeal by SOUTHERN HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION to contest the issuance of a Paving Permit - **PLN-BOA-20-00065** — failed (4-1): Third party appeal by LISA GANNOE to contest the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy --- ## Full transcript The Ave Maria Maria, gratia plena. Maria, gratia plena. Maria, gratia plena. Ave, ave Dominus, Dominus de Cus. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus. et benedictus fructus ventris, ventris tui, Jesus. Amen. Thank you. Okay, so we'll start to ask our applicants to move back to the attendees. So again, you have like a bit of a blip where you might feel like you're being disconnected, but you should come back on right away. Thank you. Are you going to bring up all the board members? I'll see Harry whenever we ask the board members join if you can share your screen, your video. Thank you. Ms. Rogers-Card. Harry Clark. We got any more? There are no members in the attendees' side. So don't we get them? Just four of us? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Tommy Glover. This is the regular scheduled December meeting of the Board of Adjustments. We have, looks like we have four members of the board with us today. And two others that I was expecting that are not showing up. Maybe they'll come in later. So, Tracy, you want me to read it or you to read the... I would love for you to read it. Okay, I'll be glad to. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. so there now the first order of business is the approval of the minutes so I'm going to ask those those board members present the three of you have you read the minutes and do you have any offers of suggested changes or do you like them as they are and harry you'll have to unmute yourself here we go uh mr chair i recommend approval of the minutes of november the 9th i believe it is thank you mr clark do we have a second uh mr walker seconds uh all those in favor raise your right hand or raise one hand Ms. Carter, are you there? Ms. Carter, can you hear us? I'm not sure she's on. Ms. Carter, can you hear us? Can she hear me? I can see it. Ms. Carter, can you hear us? Can you wait on me? Can you hear us? Oh, I can't hear. I want to make sure that you can hear us when we're talking. Oh, well, I couldn't at first. I was like, oh, everybody's quiet, but I can hear you now. Okay, good. We took a vote on the minutes from the November meeting. Are you in favor of the minutes? I am, yes. All right. That's four. That's a majority of the members. Thank you very much. Okay. Then we muted you guys. Okay. I had to wave at you. You can't see my lips moving because I've got my mask on. I think it might be easier for me to talk if we just social distance for me, so you can see my lips when I'm talking. I'm chairing the meeting today in Brandon's absence. And so the next item is to run through the agenda and to determine which of the eight items on the agenda are going to be adopted in summary fashion and which are contested and will have to be heard. So I'll run through the agenda first and call each case and ask the applicant to be recognized. So the first case on the docket is a variance appeal, DLNBOA 20-52, Keith National Corporation. is the applicant present? Is that Mr. Murphy? Mr. Mead and Mr. Murphy have both raised their hands as being present. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board regarding this application either for or against the application? Just the applicant still has their name or their hand raised and their attorney. I don't see anybody else so that so we'll call that uncontested application and you'll be first on the docket. The next case is BLM VOA 29-59 Central Equipment. Request for variance. Is the applicant present? Ms. Katie Pentecost-Lindeman is present today on behalf of Central Equipment. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to address the board regarding this application either for or against the application? Ms. Whitman shared her screen. Okay, did we get, did we see anybody in there? There is Kim. I believe she is here for a different application. Let's ask her. Ms. Gersony, we see that you've raised your hand. I'm going to allow you to speak. Did you have something to share on this today? I think she unraised her hand. Okay. All right. we don't see any hands raised for anybody who wishes to talk either for or against the applicant central equipment so we'll mark that as uncontested as well and you'll be second on the docket. The next one is DLN VOA 20-61 knockout development is the applicant present? yes miss shauna corman is present on behalf of the applicant okay thank you miss corman is there anyone that wishes to address the board regarding this application for or against against knockout developments application i don't see any hands raised. So this will be uncontested as well. You'll be in the third on our docket. The next case on the agenda is PLN BOA 20-63 Eastern Avenue Sober Living. Is the applicant present? Okay. We'll require a presentation. Right. And who is that? Who is the representative? Mr. Vernon-Crisley. Okay. We did receive, I'm sorry, one letter of opposition for this application, which should be in the board member's Google Drive for your view. Okay, this is a, this is a, since this is contested and this is also recommended for disapproval by the staff, you will be heard at the end of the docket because we'll have to hear both sides. The next case on the docket is PLN VOA 20-64 Romney Market, LLC. Is the applicant present? Mr. Dick Murphy is present. And George Griffin. Okay. Now, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board regarding this application, either for or against? Ms. Clark is present today. Ms. Clark, okay. Ms. Clark, okay. Ms. Clark, we did receive one letter in support of this application, but with some concerns. Again, that's in the Google Drive. Okay. Thank you very much. a letter in support. In support, but with some questions. With some questions. Okay, so we'll take that up at the end of the docket as well, and we'll mark it as a contested case to be heard. The next on the agenda is conditional use appeal, BLN BOA 20-62, Baptist Seminary of Kentucky, is applicant present. And if we could go ahead and promote them at this time, I believe that they would like to request postponement of this application. Yes, we would like to request postponement. Okay, tell us your name, please. I am David Cassidy. I'm the president at the Baptist Seminary of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. What does the staff think about this? Did you all know about this? Yes, we're comfortable with the one month postponement. There was one individual who indicated that they would be here in opposition to this application. They are aware that it would likely be postponed, but you may want to see if they would like to. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to address the board with respect to this application? There's one person I see. Who is that? You can't quite tell from the... You can't tell from the ID on the... Yeah, I've allowed WMurphy0004 to speak. You raised your hand indicating you were interested in this particular application. Yes. Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Chairman Glover, my name is Kevin Murphy. I live at 141 West Bell Court, and I'm aware that the case is planning to be or they're requesting postponement. Okay. Thank you for that. The request has been made for a postponement. It's something we can take up right now. Is the request for a postponement to postpone this until January? Yes. Mr. Cassidy? Yes, that is correct. Okay. So a postponement of 30 days or so. And what's the board's pleasure about this? Do I have a motion? I'm willing to approve the postponement of PLN BOA 20-62 Baptist Seminary of Kentucky's request for conditional use to utilize former parish residence's office space associated with the place of religious assembly within the design infill and redevelopment area. I'm properly located at 536 Sarah Avenue, a.k.a. 533 East Main Street. Postponement to January 20, 21st meeting. Thank you, Ms. Carter. The motion has been made to postpone it for until the January meeting. Ms. Whitman, did you wish to speak? Sorry, you second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor of the postponement, signify by raising your hand. Looks like it's unanimous. The matter is postponed. Thank you. Thank you. See you next month. All righty. Next item on the agenda is Southern Heights Neighborhood Association PLN BOA 20-60 is the applicant present. And could you identify yourself please? Yes, this is Jessica Winters. I'm an attorney and I represent Southern Heights Neighborhood Association. We're here today. Okay, thank you, Ms. Winters. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board regarding this application either for or against the application? I see a few hands. We do have one letter of opposition and two letters in support of this application. Okay. We're going to treat this as a matter to be heard. It's been recommended for disapproval by staff, so we'll have to have a hearing about it anyway. We'll move you to the end of the docket, and we'll hear you after the summary cases have been heard. Thank you. The last item on the agenda is PLNBOA 20-65, Lisa Gano. Is the application? It is an application. Is the applicant present? I see Dr. Gano is present. And Mr. Martin, are you counsel for Ms. Gano? He is representing the property owner. representing the property owner okay thank you mr martin uh this uh is also a contested matter has been recommended for disapproval by the staff so you will be heard at the end of the docket thank you very much and uh let me ask the final question is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board with respect to this application either for or against Okay. All we have are the two people just recognized. Okay. So thank you very much, everybody. Now we're going to go to the top of the docket and hear the first case, which will be BLNBOA 20-52 Keith National Corporation. Can you promote, is that Mr. Murphy? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing the applicant. I represent Jeremy Mass and Ross Nash, his brother. With me also today is Steve Garland of Integrated Engineering. We did need to discuss a modification to the staff conditions for a couple minutes. I wanted to mention that to you when you were first going around. It may take five minutes or so to discuss that, but I do need to point that out to you. Is it okay for me to proceed or would you like me to wait on that? Why don't you proceed right now, Mr. Murphy, as long as we've got you here. If you're ready to tell us what your suggestions are, go right ahead. Well, thank you very much. Yes, as I told you, I represent the applicant. And we have, I'm going to share my screen just to try to illustrate where we're at on this. this is our development plan. We were at the Planning Commission last month. We had to get approval of a development plan as well as come through you all, and the Planning Commission made their action on contingent upon you all's approval of our requested variants. We're requesting a variance from 20 feet to 10 feet for our front yard setback along West Main Street. This is across the street from the Lexington Cemetery, and it's right next to the Messer Construction Building, which is right where my little cross sign is right now. Messer is here. Here's our property. And we're requesting a modification to condition 2A, or we're requesting elimination of condition 2A, which is a covered primary entrance for pedestrian access to the property. This would be along the main street frontage. And the reason for that is we have pushed this to the front because the property slopes drops about 15 feet from this point at the northwest down to this point at the southeast. So our entrances are going to be in the rear. We're going to have landscaping and appearance of sort of a one story building in the front. It'll be taller in the back. It's only one story, though. And so the floor is going to be about 10 feet below the sidewalk along Main Street. Now, at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission required us to add a five-foot sidewalk from Main Street coming down the eastern side, as you can see, to get to the rear for the entrance here on that. So we have added that since you saw the original plan. If we had an entrance up on Main Street, you'd come in, but the doorway would be at 8 to 10 feet above the floor. So there'd be a drop down there. We don't think that's appropriate. We'd have to have a stairway, which would not meet ADA standards. Our sidewalk down here does meet ADA standards. So I'm requesting elimination of condition 2A, and I wanted to add one sentence to condition 2B. I'm trying to share what I'm doing here. Yeah, never mind. I'm going to share again to get my condition back up here. and uh before you go to that second one part is the plan to have no entrance on the main street side that is correct our entrance will be on the uh on the along the rear there'll be pedestrian availability coming in here a sidewalk along the rear as well so there'll be sidewalk accessible entrance in the rear. Our front will have the windows as the staff is required. We'll have a hedge to sort of mimic the hedge and wall across the other side of the street. So we're trying to make it pedestrian friendly, but if we come in the front we don't want any entrances in the front because as I said the floor is going to be eight to ten feet below our entrance there if we if we were to have one on the front. Okay. The other request, these are my two requested changes. Number two is the staff has suggested we have, I'll go back to my development plan. There's a long-term plan to have a turn lane coming from downtown onto Buchanan Street, which might necessitate a little land coming off the front here to make a taper. Now, I'll point out that Messers Building is also 10 feet back, so they'd have to take some of Messers Building, but we want to plan for that. So we had talked about having a 10-foot setback along the western side and articulating this to bring it into 15 feet here so the taper could start there if it's ever needed sometime in the future. There's no real plans for this. I talked to my client and one of our options is just to pull this whole building back from 10 feet to 15 feet. That might be easier to pull the whole building back rather than articulate it here to meet that space needed for a potential taper. So what we're requesting is that on 2B, we state that in addition to the condition that you all have, that there be one articulation, a change of five feet. So part of our building would be 15 feet back. Just add a sentence saying, if the entire building is set back to 15 feet, no articulation will be required because we will be providing the space for the taper for that. if the whole building is pulled back to 15 feet. So anyway, I appreciate that. I've talked to traffic engineering about our setback situation. We've talked to the staff about it. We appreciate they're working with us. And we were trying to accommodate the taper by having part of it at 10 and part of it at 15. We still may be able to do that, but it's more likely that we'll put the whole building at 15 feet back. And if that's the case, we don't need the articulation on that. So that's our brief explanation. We'd be happy to answer any questions. I'm not, hopefully I've made this clear, but I'm not sure about that. Well, we'll find out if you have questions. And I have one question. So you're still requesting a setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, but you may not use all that setback, is what you're saying? That is correct. And the staff has recommended a setback of 10 feet on one half and 15 feet on the other. So you may not use you may not use that either. Is that right? That is correct. We may make the whole building 15 feet back. We're still in the planning stage so we're trying to keep a little bit of flexibility here. Well what I'm what I'm going to ask staff about this what I'm confused about is if we If we grant your request, that's not what the staff has recommended. So let me let the staff speak to that about their recommendation, and then we'll get back to you. How about that? Thank you. So I think it's important in this instance to know that the recommended articulation in position to be is not only related to the potential widening of the street but to the sort of urban design principles of trying to make a more pedestrian friendly facade along main street. So I think that any variance below the 20 feet that would be required, typically we would still want to see that articulation regardless. it. So I think that approval of this variance as long as that condition was met, if you had 15 or 20, you would probably be okay with that as part of this. But we would not want to upgrade across 15. Here's what confuses me. The column and the staff has recommended this articulation of 15 and 10 feet. But you're recommending approval, so I'm not sure what what you're recommending to be approved. So we're recommending approval of the variance to 10 feet for a portion of the building so long as there is one articulation, which is a change of at least five feet in depth, so that would be 15 and eight feet in length. So it's not necessarily saying that half of the building is 10 and half of the building is 15. The majority of the building can be 10 as long as a set that is recessed and eight feet in length can be. Gotcha. And so that gives the applicant an option and it still preserves the option of setting the whole building back to 15 feet with Mr. Murphy's recommendations. Is that right? Not as written, no. Okay. And I don't think that staff would support that if it's 15 feet is also a variance. The required setback is 20 feet. I think that if the variance requests had been made at 15 feet, we still would have applied this condition. In that case, the closest portion of the building would be 15 feet. We would still want an articulation of that dimension. The back feet in depth would be at length. So the staff is asking for an articulation regardless. Under any setback. back. Mr. Murphy, it sounds like you and the staff need to talk further. Yes. This arose because of the issue regarding the taper for the turn lane, and we thought we had solved that. As I said, we're trying to make the front of this pedestrian friendly. The planning commission approved our development plan with no articulation. It's a construction matter because, as I said, this is a steel building and it's difficult. It's proving difficult to articulate it without making this economically unfeasible. The reason for the variants coming up to start with is we wanted to put it closer to Maine to get the more urban design and also allow room in the back for fire trucks to get in and we needed that. So we need the setback and we do need the flexibility not to use the articulation if we go to 15 feet. I may, Mr. Chairman, I may need to try to discuss this with my client. It's difficult when we're not all together to be able to discuss these things with the client. Would it be possible for you to defer us a little farther down in the agenda so I can discuss this with the client a little bit more? We can do that. We may have to put you at the very end, that's suitable. Okay, if we need to do that, that would be okay. I do need to have some discussion with them about this because the articulation is proving to be a much more difficult item to attain on this than we thought in the beginning. Okay, hold on just a second. Autumn, tell me again what the purpose of the articulation is for. So the three conditions listed under condition number two are urban design standards. Because they're asking for a variance to be located closer to the street, that felt that it was especially important that certain urban design standards be met to improve that relationship between the building and the street and improve the pedestrian experience So you're not just walking by or driving by a piece blank wall. So pedestrian entrances on the front of the building are these are all pretty standard urban design standards for sort of creating that comfortable urban environment for pedestrian and for girls driving back. It's really interesting to look at and you feel safe walking by it. So that's where staff is coming from with these three recommendations. OK. I've gotten some feedback from my clients. They pointed out that this is a small building. It's only 144 feet long. And articulation is not something that's normally required in an industrial building. We can't think of any others that really have an articulation like this. And in this area, we are trying to accommodate urban design standards by putting this building closer to Main Street. We've got our parking behind, so you're not looking at trucks or cars when you're walking down Main Street. You're looking at a nicely landscaped front of this building, which will have the window treatments and that sort of thing that the staff has mentioned. But the articulation is difficult here. As you know, on this stretch of Main Street, there's not a lot of pedestrian destinations. We have cemeteries on both sides, which have long walls and have their main accesses by automobiles, Calvary on our side and Lexington Cemetery across. And we have a very shallow lot with a drop off. So with the drop off, the shallowness, the difficulty of articulation, the small size of the building, that's and being asked to accommodate the potential taper on this street at a sometime in the future. That's what's making it difficult. And we've done a lot to try to accommodate this. We've accommodated fire trucks going back, but the articulation may be something that we just can't make work on this property and unfortunately may make the project unfeasible for the applicant due to the cost situation involved. Lee, before I open it up to questions, Mr. Murphy, from the board, could we see your proposed language changes again? Could you share that screen again with us? Yes, let me get that, try to get that back up here. Here are the requested changes, which one is, as I said, eliminate 2A relating to the pedestrian access and leave too, but make a word if we move the entire building back at 15 feet, no articulation would be required. I have a quick question and this may be for staff. I know we weren't planning to hear it, but I guess I'm a little, I do understand what we're saying on the articulation, but are we not taking into account the use of the proposed building? Because it does seem to require so much architectural adjustment for an industrial related building. If they were to build at the 20-foot required setback, these would not be a requirement, but it's sort of a give and take. But if they want to reduce setbacks or the conditions that staff would recommend to sort of work in tandem with that. Do you think if they do the 15 instead of the 10 feet, I know there's still a halfway point. Is that a more reasonable, I would imagine we could accomplish that without the articulation and with all those other accommodations in place and that still be suitable. Just knowing that area and that stretch and it's going to sit back behind where Messer and those things are anyway. It just doesn't seem to be as much out of character to me from driving up and down the street as it appears to be in the report. In this location, I think we're looking to establish a character that's particularly important because there are several undeveloped lots there in a row. I think the Messer building does have a speculation very similar to what we're recommending here. Mr. Murphy, could you stop sharing? Yes. So the board members can see them. Yeah, stop sharing so we can see each other. Thank you. And I would just say that the planning commission did consider a development plan for the site. The microphone up here. They did consider a development plan for the site, but Mr. Murphy mentioned they didn't require articulation, but they did approve it contingent on the board of adjustment approving the variance. So I think there was an understanding that the board would be considering how far back the building should be located and particular conditions associated with that. Well, if I could just respond briefly to, I want to, I'll, I need to share a screen and show you one other thing here, which is the, the um gotta get through this is our uh auto turn diagram it if we go to 15 and articulate we run into problem with getting the the fire trucks back here this is a auto turn which is a program engineering program that steve garland at integrated engineering had that shows how we can get a fire truck in and out of the property here. This is set back at 10 feet. If we're pulling this back to, he did also this at further back. If we pull this back at 15 to accommodate the turn lane, then we have to articulate it to 20. That's pulling this building back here. And the ability of the fire trucks to get back to the rear of our property is compromised. I understand the need for the urban type design, although even though this is zoned industrial and has been zoned for many years, but the shallowness of the lot and that slope combined with our desire to serve this. And the main entrances will be in the rear. So our whoever rents these spaces, whether they be heating and air conditioning people or electrical people, their trucks will be in the back and won't have those from the main street. So we are mindful of that. It's just the articulation issue runs into the issue of construction of the building itself and this access of the fire vehicles in and out of there. So I wanted to point that out to you because it's not just the construction of the building. It's the shallow configuration of the lot, which is there as well. Mr. Murphy, have you considered a requesting that the board have a different dimensional articulation of maybe two feet or three feet or one even just something that would provide some physical change in the front end if it wasn't a uniform flat wall? Well, the only one we've considered is five because that was the one suggested by the staff. I can again try to talk to my clients about this, but it's part of the fact that it's a steel building with steel rafters and that sort of thing. It's easy to do on a residential townhouse because it's wood construction and you can easily work around this. But when you're doing steel joists through the whole thing, that's what's more difficult. Mr. Murphy, it sounds like there needs to be further discussions and perhaps negotiations between you and staff. And I hate to put this to a vote right now, if there's still issues to be negotiated. So let's at least move to the end of the docket so you can think about this, so staff can think about this. And if necessary, we can postpone this or continue this to the January meeting. But for now, let's put you towards the end of the docket if that suits you. Yeah, that'd be fine. That'll give me a chance to sort of discuss this with my clients and get back to you at the end. That'd be great. All right, we're going to move you to the end of the docket. And thank you very much. Okay, the next. Next case is PLN BOA 20-59 Central Equipment. Mr. Chair, I just wanted that we did not swear anyone in for that. Yeah, I understand that. You left her by the east. Yeah, sorry. Central equipment, Ms. Littman. Is it Mr. or Ms. Littman? Ms. Littman. Yes. And we promoted one. It looks like Ms. Littman, you have two logins today. Do you need both of those up? I believe there are two. Okay. I promoted both. Ms. Lindeman, is that you? And you're muted. Got it. I think we only need one pulled up. Ours is pretty simple. We just need the site plan pulled up, and we should be able to very easily go through quickly. Okay. Did I call this case? I did. Ms. Lindeman, and who is the other person representing? It's the owner, Mr. Jason Huber. Mr. Huber, could you and Ms. Lenneman raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, thank you both. Go ahead and tell us about the project. Okay, so the project is doing a stormwater improvement plan to place two underground detention basins at the front of the property and the back of the property. But today we're only talking about the front portion. We were unable to plant our two required trees in our interior landscape for Article 18 because of the depth of the new underground basin, which will be under our new parking lot in the front. And so we are just asking that we have provided those trees to the front right bottom. We've added those back in on the side since we did not have the soil depth needed in those interior islands to plant those trees to where they can live. I understand you don't want to plant trees over an underground water vault. Does that make sense? And the staff has recommended approval. Does the board have any questions of this applicable? Mr. Glover, let me just add here. This is Mr. Clark. We heard this case. I was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee, and it was my first meeting, actually. And two of us, there were only two members of the committee there, and we discussed this, and we both agreed that this proposal was appropriate because basically the health of the trees would be compromised if we insisted on that. And interesting enough, both of the members of the Landscape Review Committee were both members of the tree board. So we have a bit of qualifications there perhaps. So we were totally in favor of this, and I'll just express that to the committee. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. any other questions of this applicant for this application if no other questions i'll entertain a motion mr chair i recommend approval of plnboa 20-56 central equipment request for a variance to reduce the number of trees required within the interior vehicular use area landscape area from two trees to zero trees in a highway service business zone on property located at 791 Red Mile Road based on the recommendations of staff and subject to the three conditions as listed. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We have a second. Ms. Carter seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand. looks like we got a required number good luck with your project thank you very much okay mr guber will be removing you thank you okay the next case is uh pln boa 20 61 knockout development West for a variance is applicant here. I think that's Mr. or Miss Corman, I can't remember which whether it was. Yes, Miss Corman. I think she's here. This is Sam Rock. I think so, too. Yeah, this is Shauna Corman. Miss Corman, thank you. tell us about this project. I'll let Sam take it away. Okay. I'm here also with Russ Clark, who is the architect who's working with us on the job. Before you testify, let me get both of you, or all three of you sworn in. Would you raise your right hand? Those of you who are going to testify, do you swear or tell the truth of all truth nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, thank you. and tell us your name, please. My name is Sam Rock. I'm the general contractor, and I also happen to be an attorney, so I think I'm listed as both on the application. That's good enough. I'm Russ Clark. I'm the architect who's worked on the project with him. Okay. So what we are asking is to be permitted to use the third floor as livable space, as a bedroom, and it violates how much of the lot can be used for residential space. So we initially took out about 550 feet on the second floor so that you would have, you'd be able to look down and into the main floor from the second floor. So really it's only about a net change of 150 feet because we're adding back in about 700 feet on the third floor. So we're also going to put in an egress skylight, create stairs that are code compliant. Really, this change does not offend the neighborhood or the zoning statute at all because we're basically taking this house back from what was sort of a dilapidated duplex that was being used for all kinds of things into a very nice single family dwelling. And the third floor really makes the house economically viable as a nice single family residence over in that neighborhood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rock. Any questions from the members of the board to the applicant? I have a question for staff. Article 7-6B includes all the residential zones except R3, and this is an R3 zone. I'm just curious, why is that? We have had a few cases similar to this one in the past, and the law department managed discrimination a while back that this type of request could be made in the R3 zone where density would not be increased, where you would not be adding units. So for a single family use like this, the interpretation has been made that this type of floor area ratio could be varied so long as it would not result in an increase in the overall unit. So we compared the floor area ratio of what would be allowed in the zone for a multifamily structure. And so it does not exceed that. That's one of the reasons that we recommend approval. And that makes sense to me, too. I agree with that. I'm just curious why the R.5.7-6B doesn't include R3 zone in their list. Anybody know? I'm kind of curious. I think, if I can, Chairman Glover, it has to do with the fact that the R1 zones and the R2 zones inherently limit density based on the uses that are allowed. But in the R3 zone, you can have any of those densities. you have a single family home, a townhouse, a duplex, or multifamily. And the limiting factors tend to be not number of dwelling units are capped in an R3 zone, but rather the floor area ratio and the locked coverage and the parking that would dictate how many units you can get on there. So if we can continue to allow some variances to that R3, where it's a single family, Okay. Seems like they could have put that explanation or at least further explain the R3 maybe in the ordinance, but I guess they don't have to as long as we're here. Any other questions to either the applicant over the staff? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN VOA 20-61 knockout developments request for variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.70 in order to allow for the conversion of unfinished attic space into finished living space in a single family dwelling unit within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 473 North Martin Luther King Boulevard based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the holistic condition. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. all those in favor raise your writing or anything it actually will do thank you very much it looks like it's fairly announced the application's approved good luck with your project thank you thank you very much appreciate your all's time The next one on the docket is Eastern Avenue Sober Living, but that is a contested case, so we're going to move that to the end. And here, PLN VOA 20-day 64, Romney Market, LLC. Mr. Murphy, is that you again? Or Mr. Griffin? Mr. Griffin, you've been added to the panelists. And then Mr. Murphy, he may or may not be ready. He may be talking just fine about the other case. There we go. There you are, Mr. Murphy. he's doing two cases who wants to speak Mr. Murphy or Mr. Griffin tell us about this project and you'll have to unmute yourself hello Mr. Chairman I'm Dick Murphy and I'm sorry I was conferring with my clients on the other one I assume the Romney Road case is back up here. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Well, we do agree with the staff conditions on this. This also went through the planning commission last week, as a matter of fact, and got approved subject to your approval. And we are building the wall on the left side of the building. we are rebuilding it back to the same location it is now. Apparently, the existing building is probably not strong enough to hold up the roof under the reconstruction of the building. So we have to put a new wall up there. As I said, we do agree with the staff conditions. And rather than me making a presentation, I'd like to be able to just respond to any issues that may come up from comments. Fair enough. Do we have any questions from the board to? that was that once again Mr. Chair the landscape review committee had this proposal presented to it last week and we had no objections to it so I'll just state that for the record okay thank you Mr. Clark I have a concern because I want to make sure we're doing everything legally there is an ordinance saying that you can't expand enough of a non-conforming use. And I guess my question to staff and the legalist was whether or not this application is proposing to expand a non-conforming use. The current structure is non-conforming. They are removing that structure and constructing a new building by asking for the variance that is eliminating the non-conformity. Fair enough. Just wanted to get that into record. Any other questions for this application? If not, somebody make a motion. Mr. Carroll, make the motion to approve. I'm sorry, Mr. Clark, before you- Hold on a second, Mr. Clark. Sorry. We did have someone in attendance today that wished to- Oh, we do. Ms. Clark is in attendance. Yes. Ms. Clark, I didn't mean to open look you. Are you present? Yes, thank you. And thank you, Ms. Wade. Do I need to swear? Yes, let's make sure we can see you first. Are you on the phone? No, I can be visual. Indeed, we don't. As a member of the public, we usually don't allow the video. Okay. Without seeing you, please raise your right hand. as you swear or burn, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Go ahead. Okay. Could I ask, do you have a site plan to show? I was assuming there would be some introduction. And I also want to ask if you received a letter that I sent. Not very timely, but I did send a letter, and it has some exhibits in it. Ms. Clark, I received that, Tracy Wade received it this afternoon after the meeting started, so we haven't been able to share that with the Board of Adjustment members. We can share it on the screen if that's what you would like. Oh, actually, I think that would be lovely. If you could start with the site plan, that might be more lucid. The members have the site plan to consult. Is that not right? The members of the board have a site plan, but we can share it on the screen for everybody's benefit. Okay. Well, I have to manage my screen a little better here. because all I can see is the screen and I can't see my own notes. Here we go. I appreciate your patience. This is still a challenging format, these online things. First of all, I want to say we all know this is a very welcome project and the neighborhood has been waiting for it for five years. this design looks especially viable in that you've got it incorporating liquor sales with grocery and also a terrace for light fare upstairs so it looks like a great business plan and one very welcome to the area and one that everyone wants to support it looks viable the site however has its challenges and here's where the site plan comes in it's very snugly fitted into this highly desirable neighborhood and there's not much room to spare. If you look, the parking is kind of squeezed in and there's just five feet along the northern boundary. They want a zero yard, no yard, whatever on the southern boundary. What's important to notice is that, and maybe you can't even see this on the plan, but it is surrounded on three sides by overhead power lines. On the north boundary. The south boundary, the power lines are on the other side of the driveway on the lot of the Cooper condominiums. So they run alongside the fronts of the garages. Then the power lines run along the rear of the building and continue across the lot over into the next property. What it means is it's very hard to get any trees in viable locations. In fact, it would be along the southern boundary where you would have 10 feet of yard if you do not grant that variance. Plus, you would have 20 feet of the driveway of the neighboring condominiums and any space over top of the building on the rooftop. So there's actually more room to site viable trees in a 10 foot side yard here than nearly anywhere else on the property. It is, however, a tight situation. There's a lot that's wanted and needed on this site. I would say let's get the ship into harbor, let's make this variance happen, but with conditions that make it not exercise an adverse effect on the larger area. What's important to note, and now could you please show the letter that I sent, and thank you very much for accommodating this. let's see if we can pull it up let's see if we can accommodate you it's just a moment here and we're wrestling with our technology as well you know I just really appreciate you're doing what you can it's kind of hard on us to do this okay super so what what I would invite you to look at is the paragraph after the surrounded by power lines at the bottom of that page there. The grocery site lies between two of the four documented flooding sites. These four together make up a Cooper Drive stormwater project that's funded by, you know, the consent decree kind of thing, it's going to cost two and a half million dollars. It stretches over about 120 acres, and this is right at the heart of it. You're looking at, in the detail there of the stormwater situation, you're looking at two big pools of water. And one is about, it's just north of the wheelers on Romany and the other is at the foot of Duke Road where it meets Cooper and it's called the Cooper stormwater project because that's where this stormwater is headed now can you see the long driveway of the Romany grocery that joins Romany to Cooper there I mean to Duke there okay this is It's a driveway with a 16-foot slope, and all that water runs right off that driveway right down to Duke and then down to Cooper. So this grocery store has for years been contributing to this flooding site at Cooper there. If you look really closely, and I don't think you can see it here, but you can notice the contour lines show that the water also sheets off the parking lot, dropping into the apartment building's yard to the north. It's about as high as two feet off the ground in some places in the middle of that length of the parking lot. So it is offering its stormwater to both the apartments to the north, which may well have their hands full with the pooling up from the Romany end of things, and to that Cooper site down there. given that it really is in the middle of an important and difficult a significant stormwater site that will require the attention and the substantial funds of the public to to rectify i don't think it's fair and right in fact i don't even think it would be logical for the Board of Adjustment, carte blanche, to grant a variance and make a finding that this variance will have no impact, no adverse impact on the surrounding area. And that goes further down into the ladder. Because what you're doing is you're losing some 3,000 square feet and more of the only yard, the only green turf, pretty nearly the only green turf available. There should be some under the power lines to the back of the new building. There's a wee little bit along the front, but actually the front yard they propose to pave as some kind of a terrace, I think, as well. So to take away this yard and actually landscaping with, it should have some kind of a condition on the variance to mitigate the impact. You have a situation where there's nowhere to host the 20% of required tree canopy and there's nowhere to manage the water. Now, the developer, Mr. Griffin, has been just wonderfully forthcoming. He's spending a lot of money to tear down that building and build a new one, because that's how he thinks this project can work and thrive. He's spending money on an elevator to put into that building. um he's he can't spare land so some of these things he's making up with with expenditure um i think it's important to spend some money on stormwater management and what i would suggest is is really um it's not for me to dictate i don't need to tell you that but it's not for me to dictate the engineering solution. But I would suggest that there are a lot of options. And if you could add a condition of the grant of this variance to say that, depending on which things the applicant would be most willing to do, one thing one can do as a developer is pay a fee to the city in lieu of managing the stormwater, and then they manage the stormwater. Another thing that can be done, there are stormwater grants, and the applicant, the developer pays 20%, and there's an 80% match for that. You may be aware of the one, there's one by the co-op on Southland. They could put in permeable pavers where the parking spaces are. They could put a tree well along between there. I almost think that it's pointless to put trees along the northern boundary because they're under overhead lines and they only have five feet of width. I think if you took that five feet of width, made it six or seven feet of width on the parking lot and made better tree wells, a real tree well, the tree wells are described on the development plan that you are saying that this variance will follow. and it's described as kind of cutting straight down, cutting holes in the pavement and the underlay to fill it with planting material and plunk a tree in. A well-engineered tree well needs rather more than that. It needs some drainage. I was really encouraged to hear Mr. Griffin say the other day at the development plan review that he was willing to put a pipe in. He didn't indicate a willingness to do underground detention basin. Now, you are not the planning commission, you're not the subdivision committee, and I want to steer clear of saying this is how the development plan should be drawn and written. But I would ask that you attach a condition to the grant of the variance. And I don't object to the variance, provided it's mitigated with particular attention to the stormwater situation. And so I would ask that you attach a condition to the variance that the full 20% tree canopy required be furnished and meet the approval of the urban forester. And in general, that's done, but there's been some question about whether we'll really get our 20% and how can it meet his approval. And also attach that stormwater quantity and quality will be improved to meet the approval of the division of water quality. I think that's a good way to keep it really vague and flexible, a lot of room for someone to move and make a good solution there. But I would ask that you not grant a variance where you're removing some potential yard that could host trees and could better the situation with stormwater flooding, both the quantity of stormwater and its quality. without attaching some kind of a requirement that they mitigate the impact of losing that space. And this is really something they've been doing for years. But it doesn't mean it's not a problem and an adverse effect and a hazard to the public. Okay. Thank you. I want to say right at the outset that you said you had some questions about this. we ordinarily separate our cases into contested and uncontested cases in order to facilitate the quick review and not to waste everybody else's time who's waiting in line with an uncontested case. But it sounds like your comments are more in opposition to the current application as submitted. And so had I known what you were going to say, I would put this case closer to the end of the docket so we could hear your comments that are actually in opposition to the application that's submitted. You're pretty experienced at this, so I don't want you to game the system by saying you just have questions when actually you have comments that are in opposition to the application itself. But since you've made your presentation, I want to ask, first of all, the staff if any of Ms. Clark's concerns were taken into account when this application was being reviewed and if so what you have to say about that. Like the last application this application does have a development plan that was reviewed by the planning commission and it received approval last week two of the conditions related to that are things that Ms. Clark mentioned. So the Planning Commission approves the development plan contingent or with conditions contingent on the urban forest you're signing off and the landscape examiner signing off on that plan that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. So those conditions will be met and if they cannot meet it, especially the tree canopy requirement, It's actually under the authority of the planning commission to waive that particular number, that percentage. So I think it would be probably an overreach of the board's authority to now mandate it when the planning commission actually has, according to the zoning ordinance, the ability to waive that requirement. At this point, the applicant has indicated they were planning to meet the requirement of 20% and have submitted a landscape drawing to the Division of Environmental Services in order to meet it. The other requirement she mentioned has to do with engineering and water quality. And of course, that is always a condition of approval with the planning commission as well. It has to meet the water quality and the storm water requirements of the storm manuals. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. Do any members of the board have any questions, either a staff or applicant? uh the applicant would like to speak well if i could go first let me let me respond and george you cover anything i don't cover um we were certainly cognizant of the issues that miss clark has brought up as miss wade mentioned we did have our development plan hearing at the planning commission last thursday and we I'm happy to report we got approved by the Planning Commission but subject to a number of conditions and one of the we do have to have the sign off from the Urban Forester I want to point out that we did not ask for any waiver from the Planning Commission of the tree canopy requirement so as Miss Wade mentioned that is under the Planning Commission's authority we have not asked for a waiver of the tree requirement at all. There was discussion of storm drainage, and the Planning Commission, as a standard note, and as reiterated by Ms. Vaughn Atkins of the Division of Engineering, we will have to submit our stormwater plans to Division of Engineering for approval under the stormwater manuals prior to starting construction of this, and that will be done as well. And George Griffin, of course, is with me. George is going to be the one who is building and going to run the new grocery store. And he has, I did want to report to you, he's had two meetings with neighbors out there, one a group meeting of six or seven out at Wheeler Pharmacy, and another six or seven at the office of Ben Campbell, the appraiser whose building is right behind this on Duke Road, right next to the old post office. And both those meetings went very well. I know Ms. Clark lives some distance away from this property, but the meetings with the close residents have gone very well. And I want you all to know we are very aware of storm issues. And one thing I do want to point out, though, is we will be actually slightly decreasing the amount of our property that is covered by impervious surface, but none in any case will be required to be approved and signed off by the Division of Engineering. So the Planning Commission is very aware of these issues, as are the city agencies, and our engineer, Bill McAlpin, of Eagle Engineering is, I think, on the line too, who's designing this for us. And he's working on the stormwater issues with Vaughn Atkins of the Division of Engineering. So just want to reiterate, we do agree with the staff conditions. And just want to make you aware, we have a lot other conditions we're complying with through the Planning Commission's development plan approval, which was last Thursday. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Does any members of the board have any questions for this applicant? Well, I cannot go without speaking. I want to pre... Go ahead. Mr. Griffin, you have a chance to cause your attorney more problems than he has. Okay, okay. You're welcome to speak. but I would suggest to you that you have counsel. Well, I do have counsel. On your behalf, but you're welcome to go ahead and speak if you like. All right. Well, I'm just trying to sell some groceries. And I want to be a good, friendly name. And I'll do whatever I can do to make all that happen. So that's all I want to say. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Do any members of the Board of Adjustment have any questions for this applicant? Anybody? If not, Mr. Clark, you'll have to unmute. I'd like to say that I appreciate Ms. Clark's efforts here, and I listen to her every time she speaks. At the same time, there are times when I disagree with her, as she will gladly tell you, I suspect. but this way to answer the questions I had and and I think the fact that the planning commission has spent a great deal of time on this I think answers my questions and I'm I I think this is a marvelous proposal and and I think most of Ms. Clark's objections will be satisfied by the the final project and the requirements the conditions established by the planning commission so I I feel very comfortable with this. Would you like to make a motion, Mr. Clark? I will make a motion. I move to approve BLNBOA 20-64, the Romney Market LLC, request for variances to one, reduce the side yard setback adjoining more restrictive zone from 10 to zero, and two, to reduce the required landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet in order to construct a new building in the neighborhood business zone on property located at 344 Romney Road based on the staff recommendation and subject to the three conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Barton. We have a second. I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor, raise your hand. it looks unanimous including mr griffin the uh the application is approved good luck with the project and i'm i'm looking forward to uh grocery shopping there when you're up and running well uh you better go i will thank you very much thank you all very much okay Let's see, the next case. ELN VOA 20-60 is a case that has been recommended for disapproval by the staff, so that will go to the end of the docket. And ELN VOA 20-65, Lisa Gano's application or appeal, has been recommended for disapproval, so that will go to the end of the docket as well, which takes us to the contested docket. And the first case on the contested docket is ELN VOA 20-63 Eastern Avenue Sober Living is applicant present. Okay, let's see. Mr. Applicant, tell us your name, please. You are muted, so we can't hear you. Okay, now I'm here. Tell us your name, please. My name is Vernon Presley with Easton Avenue Silver Living. Are you the applicant? Yes, sir. Okay, would you raise your right hand? You swear it will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Tell us, this is a contested case. Staff has recommended disapproval, so the staff goes first procedurally in this case, so we'll hear from staff, and then you can respond. We'll have an opportunity to respond at the end of that presentation. Yes, sir. All right. I will share my screen. There will be a second. Are you all able to see my PowerPoint? Yes, I can. All right. So this application is a request for a variance to increase the allowable lot coverage from percent to 47 percent in order to construct a new two-story accessory structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property at 208 Eastern Avenue. So the subject property is located just north of the intersection of East 2nd Street and Eastern Avenue. You can see the white arrow pointing to the property there. Currently the property contains a 1,960 square foot residential building with four apartment units. The lot and the existing structure are both legally non-conforming. The lot does not mean the required frontage for multifamily dwelling units and the structure already exceeds the allowable lot coverage. The allowable lot coverage is 25% and the existing lot coverage is 32%. So the zoning ordinance defines lot coverage as a computed ground area occupied by all buildings on the lot. Article 7 states that the Board can only grant variances to lot coverage in the R1 and R2 zones, where an increase in lot coverage cannot result in an increase in dwelling units on the property. Article 8-12i states that the lot coverage shall be 25% for multifamily dwelling units in the R3 zone. So here we have the site plan that was submitted. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a new two-story garage behind a existing apartment building. So here you have the apartment building and at the rear this is the proposed garage structure. Here's a zoomed in on that site plan. The applicant is requesting to construct a 30 foot by 30 foot two-story garage with space for two vehicles to park, two workspaces, a storage room, and a bathroom on the first floor and then an additional apartment on the second floor. So staff has a number of concerns with this request. The first being that the board does not have the authority to approve a variance for lot coverage in situations where it could increase the density on a particular property. So this is sort of similar to discussions we've had about floor area ratio and in this case we're concerned because this could result in an increase in the allowable dwelling units on the property which is outside of the board abilities. The applicant is requesting an additional unit which represent an increase in density. If the structure includes a dwelling unit, the property would also have to be considered as a group residential project. When you have two separate buildings and dwelling units, you have to have a group residential project, which requires a development plan and approval by the Planning Commission. And there are a number of other requirements that it would be unlikely that this property can meet given the configuration of the lot and the existing structure. An additional concern is the existing informal parking area. I'll go back up to the aerial photo here. The rear of the property, you see this uncaved area that's currently used for parking. It can hold about four vehicles. Based on the existing number of bedrooms in the multifamily building, seven parking spaces should be required. And construction of the garage would reduce the number of vehicles that could park on the property, thus expanding the non-conforming parking situation. So those are the primary reasons that staff is recommending this approval. The types of spaces that are being shown on the submitted floor plan are also of some concern. We wanted to talk about that as well. The property is currently a sober living facility. And sober living facilities, as long as the residents are not under supervision and not receiving certain types of services, like counseling or training programs or things like that, as long as it's individuals who are living in apartments and who are choosing to live a sober lifestyle, that is still regulated as any apartment building. But once those additional services are provided, we get into the territory of a rehabilitation home, which would be conditional use in the zone. So the two workrooms are a bit of a concern to staff. Those could easily be used as office space for counseling or other services being provided. And if those were to be approved, that it would be likely that the applicant would need to come back to the board for conditional use as either a rehabilitation home or a community center. So we just wanted to touch on that. And on your screen, you'll see the three reasons that SAP is recommended disapproval. Granting the variance would constitute a circumvention of the Loaning Ordinance. Lot coverage cannot be varied in the R3 zone when it can result in an increase in density on a property. Allowing additional lot coverage in this location would create an opportunity for more units on the property which already contains a non-conforming structure. B construction of the garage would increase the non-conforming parking situation on the property. there is an informal parking area that appears to be large enough for about four vehicles to park. With the garage there would only be two available parking spaces. Nc. Granting the requested variance alone would not be enough to allow for the construction of the requested structure. Other variances related to the size of the structure and the number of parking spaces would be required to satisfy the applicant's proposal. The structure includes a dwelling unit. The property would have to meet the requirements for a group residential project established by Article 9 of the zoning ordinance which requires the planning commission's approval of a development plan. Given the size and configuration of the lot and maintenance and structure, it's unlikely that the requirements could be met on the site. And I will take any questions. Yes, any questions from the board to Ms. Midyett? Anybody? okay mr presley uh you've heard what uh the reasons for the staff's recommendation of disapproval uh tell us why you believe this application should be granted okay thank you sir um yes we we uh spoke about this earlier and we did agree to reduce the footprint from 30 by 30 to 22 by 22 which would give us no more than 980 square feet for the total spot including the two-car garage below and the apartment above so we would we would not exceed 980 square feet so our footprint would be reduced so that we would not exceed up to the point where we originally submitted a 30 by 30. So we found that the 30 by 30 was way above the amount that we could hope to put on the spot. So we did agree to reduce that and we submitted a new site plan and drawing to show that it would be only a 22 by 22 space instead of a 30 by 30. and the two car parking spaces that we would have in the garage would be still parking and there would be still additional room for two other parking spaces on the side of the garage so we would not actually be losing any parking space but we would be gaining a space for the live on live in and live on supervising. We are a 11-bed facility and with the garage and apartment that we put above, we would not increase our bed count above the 11-count bed that Medicaid has approved us for. So we would not be increasing that number, nor will we be going up to the 1800 square feet with a 30 by 30 on the ground and 30 by 30 above it. So we did agree to reduce that footprint. And so as far as the parking, we still want to have the two parking spaces, plus the other two parking spaces on the side that would be available. So we wouldn't actually be reducing the amount of parking spaces that we already have for the facility. This would increase our ability to provide better services for our clients because we do have interns coming from the University of Kentucky who come there to do their interns in social work and community nursing. So in order to provide those services, we would take the one unit that we have now that has a bare room in it and turn that into an office. And that would allow the interns and students to have privacy to speak with our clients. Now, all of our counseling is done off-site. So we do not do any treatment or counseling. We have a licensed clinical psychologist who works downtown, who partners with us. So we won't be doing any treatment on site. And we really won't change our bed count either. It'll just make it better to have a more private setting. We have right now what we call a common room and in the inside of our common room most of our counseling is conducted there but in order to make it really private we need to really have that so it can be closed in so that no one else can hear what's being said between the clients so we won't be expanding the size of our facility because we're logged in for 11 beds. We will not be increasing that with the new scaled down version of the add-on that we want to bring about. Okay, thank you, Mr. Presley. Any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Presley? Mr. Presley, one of the problems as I see it is the fact that the building as it exists right now is nonconforming and therefore any increase in the size, which means any additional structures, would be expanding a nonconforming situation. uh that's that to my mind and it may not be the staff's mind but that to my mind is the primary reason why uh why this uh this your application and your project is problematic um staff has expressed their concerns well and their reasons for their and the uh reasons for disapproval but that's I think that's the problem. If this application were perhaps at a different location where the existing structure were not already an existing non-conformity you might have some hope of getting this application through by adding some space, but the density issue is a major concern. You're pretty well in lock as far as what you've got there already. And so I'm sympathetic to the staff's concerns about this application. May I ask staff what the lot coverage of the existing structure is now? You have that figure? Yes, the existing lot coverage is 32 percent. The allowable lot coverage is 25 percent. Yeah, okay. That's why it's not conforming. Yeah, that's why it's not conforming. And that's a problem already. You're already outside the dimensional maximum that's allowed for this residential zone on this particular piece of property. To me, that's one of the primary issues. I think you have good intentions. and I think your plan has a lot of good things to recommend it. Our problem here is the fact that in this particular location with the restrictions that are existing on the property itself, as it exists, that's the problem. If it were somewhere else, if it were a different location, perhaps on a larger one, you might not have trouble in getting this approved as you do, as you are having with this application. So that's my issues as I see it. Anybody else have questions or concerns? One more question. There are two garages that are located right near the property where I'm proposing to build my garage. and these apartments, these garages look to be about 10 years old and so there had to have been some variance granted in order for them to build anything on that lot because their property is the same as mine and so in the past there have been two apartments built not apartments but garages built on land in the back area that borders the alleyway, Far's Alley. So it's not that this is something super unusual to have apartments, I mean, a garage there. Now, none of the two garages that are currently there have an apartment over the top of it. Now, if it's just a matter of having an apartment over it and not be an issue, then I would remove the apartment and just build a garage if that's all I can build. But I would not be that far out of what other agencies and what other people in that area have built on because the house where the apartment is sitting, the two houses, they don't have no more space than I do. But they were still allowed to do it. Well, we don't know whether they were allowed to do it or not. their properties are not before us today. And so that would be something that could be investigated by building inspection if they were built without permission. That's something that building inspection can take into account. But the application today, your application today, has been recommended for disapproval. for the reasons stated. Even with reducing the footprint side from 30 feet by 30 to 22 by 22? I think another issue is the proposed increase in density, which is a major concern as well. And the problem is not your application for what you're planning to do. The problem is the application to increase the size of the structure on the property to increase the density of all the property as well. So it's not the application itself. It's just where it's located. On this particular piece of property, this application won't work. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I would like to respond to what he has suggested. Is he still with the recommendations that he's making, is he still not to be considered for this? for this? Well, the lot coverage is not something that the board can vary in this case. And it's fairly clear in the zoning ordinance that you're not in a position to be able to do that because it increases density. So the best way to increase density and floor area and lock beverage is to go to a different zone. So there's a different administrative remedy to allow for more development on this site and that would be a dump change. But asking the board and I believe that Ms. Godderweiss informed the applicant that this was something the board did not have the authority to bring. It's pretty specific in the ordinance but it's not so so if it's not increasing density well he's still increasing lock coverage as as well as floor area okay but with his uh with his numbers that he's working with he's still increasing okay all right thank you that's what i was asking yeah it's the lot coverage i think is more of the problem that's that's why the garage wouldn't work Yeah, and he's already in a lot of coverage of requirement in this zone is 45%. He's asking to expand it to 47%. He's already at 32%, which is above the permissible. So he can't build anything really because that would increase the non-conforming and it's not permitted by the ordinance. And that's true for multifamily. So if in some situation and R3 don't have a single family resident, and so maybe Mr. Herman's example with a single family resident, they are not held to the same, they actually don't have a lock separate requirement. They actually have an FAR and then are allowed additional spread footage. So there are some differences in the ordinance there based on use. So maybe the other properties that you mentioned are only single family. Yes, they are. So that's the problem. I'm sorry about that, but it's just a location where your property is situated. Any other questions to the staff or to the applicant or anybody? You mentioned zone change. Is that possible to do, a zone change? It's not impossible. It's fairly complicated. It would probably involve some extensive lawyering up to attempt that. I don't mind. And so, you know, that's something you could explore, but probably not during this hearing. Okay, thank you. All right. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll entertain any motion. If you're having trouble with how to phrase it, we'll walk you through it or help you with it. Are you speaking to me? No, not you, Mr. Presley. I'm speaking to members of the board. Thank you. I move for disapproval of ELN VOA 20-63 Eastern Avenue Sober Living's request for variance to increase the allowable lot coverage from 25% to 47% in order to construct a new two-story accessory structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 208 Eastern Avenue based on the staff's recommendations. Okay, and for the reasons in the staff report. or the reasons in the staff report. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Walker, second. All those in favor say, raise your right hand. Raise your hand. It looks fairly unanimous. The motion carries the application is disapproved. thank you Mr. Presley and perhaps we'll see you later. Thank you sir. Have a good day. Okay thank you. Thank you Mr. Presley. Next case is Southern Heights Neighborhood Association PLN DOA 20-60 let's see Ms. Wetters are you are you here and we can promote you yes hi here I am I have to advance to the panel again so that was the delay there stand by this is a So this application was recommended for disapproval by the staff and therefore, according to our procedures, the staff presents its arguments first. And so we'll hear from Ms. Midyette and then you can respond to that. Do you want to swear? Oh, I'm sorry. We have two members of the Division of Building Inspection present today. This case and the next case are both related to permits that were issued by building inspections. I can do that. Mr. Joseph Bryant and George Dillon, if you would unmute yourselves and perhaps share your screen. Thank you. and we may have someone from traffic engineering or engineering that needs to speak as well. So, Mr. Parker. Okay, Mr. Dillon and Mr. Bryant and Mr. Parker and Ms. Winters, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. All right, thank you. Now we'll hear from Ms. Mignot. All right, I'll share my screen. All right. This application is a request for a third party appeal to contest the issues of a paving permit by the Division of Building Inspection in a professional office P1 zone on property located at 1950 and 2020 Nicholasville Road. The subject property includes two lots located just northeast of the intersection of Southland Drive and Nicholasville Road. At the corner 2020 contains a U.S. bank branch. 1950 contains another building owned by the bank which has been used historically as office space and more recently a storage for the bank. This application is to consent a paving permit for the area at the rear of the two properties. You can see here in the site the paving permit drawing this area here has been paved to connect to property. The appellate is concerned that this paving will increase cut-through traffic, particularly on Edsmore Drive, who deserves up to banks drive period from false cutting through from Jessalyn to Edsmore. So prior to the paving permit being issued back in September, the applicant observed that work was being done and filed a complaint with the Division of Building inspection for work without a permit. At that time, a stop work order was issued and an application was made for a paving permit and building inspection issued that permit on October 7th. As far as the installation of this paving, traffic from the drive-through would come in off of Juscelin and then circle around the building and have to exit onto Nicholasville Road With the paved connection between the two lots in this area here, users of the drive-through will have the option to also exit onto Edgeport and the app repellent is of the opinion that traffic will cut through from Just Point to Edgeport to avoid Nicholasville Road. They believe the paving permit should not have been issued and that a development plan should have been required and the conditional use permit related to the existing drive should have been required. If I had here, Here's the copy of the building permit. So planning staff, in going through the history of this property, the bank itself was approved as a drive-in bank with a special exception by the Board of Adjustment back in 1964. At that time, the property was undergoing a zone change from what was called a residence four zone to a professional office P1 zone, and the drive-in bank was an allowable principal use in the P1 zone. So the board approved a special exception to allow the drive-in bank with the condition that the zone change goes through to the P1 zone. We were unable to locate a development plan as regulated by Article 21 for this property. Typically, a development plan is required for zone change, but it appears that there was not one in this instance. At the time, in 1954, there were some differences in the ways that development plans were required and what they are today. So there's not what we would consider to be a development plan today for this property. We did find a site drawing that was labeled as a site development plan, but at the time, site plan and development plan were often kind of used interchangeably. So that drawing may have been more related to the BOA. So since there's not a development plan and the subject property contains two separate lots, there's no reason for a development plan to be required at this time for a paving project. Even though it affects two properties, it's not uncommon for the Division of Building Inspection to issue paving permits for access between two properties without requiring a development plan. The issue of the drive-through facility is a little bit interesting. I'll just go back to the area. I'll still be talking to what we're looking at here. The current P1 zone regulations are different than what they were in 1964, with a drive-through facility being an accessory use if it's shown on a development plan in the P1 zone, and if it's not shown on the development plan, then it would be a conditional use. So since the drive-through facilities were approved as a special exemption by the board and there is no development plan, it's reasonable to expect that the drive-through facilities would be treated as a conditionally if they were to be expanded. Given that the drive-through facilities themselves have not changed, in this instance the drive-through, there are two drive-through lanes here and again they previously were always going to be routed out to Nicholasville Road. The new paving, in staff's opinion, does not represent an expansion of the drive-through facilities because that is not being changed. If an additional lane was to be added or if the New Blissville Road access were to be closed, that would have an effect on the existing drive-thru. But as it operates now, the drive-thru is essentially operating the same way it always has. So staff would not recommend that the board consider this as a conditional use or an expansion of existing conditional interest. The appellant also contends that the parcels have been consolidated by the new paved connection. Although the two lots are physically connected by the pavement, this does not constitute legal consolidation, which can only be accomplished by reporting a subdivision flat in the county clerk's office. And there is no reason for the government to compel the property owner to consolidate the two lots because there's not an issue regarding the the property line. Typically, consolidation class that requires the property line could create a billing code or other regulatory violations. So there does not appear to be a reason to request or require a consolidation in this instance. So staff has recommended disapproval of this application and to uphold the Division of Building Inspection's issuance of the Paving Permit. The Division of Building Inspection has issued the Paving Permit in accordance with with the requirements of Article 5-4B. A development plan has not been certified for the subject property nor is one required for the installation of paving that connects to Lott. And although the new paving does provide an additional means for customers using the drive-thru facility to exit, it does not expand the use of the drive-thru, which is operating in the location for 50 years before the current building ordinance adopted in 1983. The new paved connection between 1950 and 2020 Nicosville Road does not constitute an expansion of the drive-thru facility, So conditional use application is not required. And I will exit out of this and stop my share and I will take any questions. Any members of the board have any questions for Autumn about her presentation? As I see, the paving permit doesn't expand the drive-thru because the drive-thru remains the same. it does offer users of the drive-through facilities with the bank an option to exit on Edgemoor rather than turning left and exiting onto Nicholsville Road. But as she explained, that's not an expansion of the use. Any other questions from the board members? okay so uh this winter if you'll unmute yourself good afternoon board of adjustment members i'm ready to proceed when you are we're ready for you go ahead i'm here today on behalf of my client the southern heights neighborhood association and they have filed this appeal pursuant to Article 7-6E of the zoning ordinance as a party that has been agreed by an official action of the Division of Building Inspection and the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, we are seeking a review of the decision of the Division of Building Inspection to issue a paving permit on October 7, 2020 to Asphalt Paving and Maintenance who we will refer to here as the applicant, which authorized the paving at 2020 and 1950 Nicholasville Road, which we will refer to these properties as the subject properties. Importantly, the paving was actually performed before the application seeking the permit was even filed, and it was done well in advance of the permit being issued. Both properties are owned by Great Financial Bank and are occupied by U.S. Bank. Both properties are zoned P1. The paving permit at issue authorizes the continuation of work being performed by asphalt paving and maintenance to connect the two properties by removing landscaping and a brick wall separating them and paving a rear portion of both properties, thereby creating an access road behind the property stretching from Jeslyn Drive through to Edgemore Drive. Building Inspection issued the permit without requiring the applicant or the owner to file the proper applications that would have triggered review and opportunity for notice and public comment that are required by the zoning ordinance for reasons that I'll get into here in a minute. Southern Heights Neighborhood Association respectfully requests the Board of Adjustment to determine that the paving permit should be revoked and that the area issue should be restored to its previous state. I have a little PowerPoint that I'd like to share with you guys today. It just mainly contains some images of what we're talking about here so I'm going to share my screen if that's okay. May I do that? Yes, that'd be fine. Okay, here we go. Okay. Okay. Here we are. Can you guys see this map image here on slide one? Yes. Okay, great. So this image is this black line here is basically the property line between this property here which is 2020 Nicholasville Road and this property here which is 1950 Nicholasville Road. And as you can see and as Autumn was mentioning earlier, this property here at 1950 Nicholasville Road has an old residential house that's being used by U.S. Bank as offices. And now we think it's unoccupied. It's mainly being used for storage. And it has sort of a circular driveway here that has entrance and exit onto Edgemoor. And it has some parking here along the front and I think maybe a little bit in the back as well. Okay. And so right now this property just has this circular drive and it's only accessible from Edgemoor 1950 Nicholasville Road or before this work was done. Then over here you have 1920 Nicholasville Road and then, or I'm sorry, 2020, I think. Yes, 2020 Nicholasville Road. And this is where the bank itself is located. And it has an entrance off of Jeslin Drive here and the tellers, the teller, the drive-through teller and there's a 24-hour ATM machine are located here on the back side of the building, okay? And then the exit or entrance, another exit entrance is here on Nicholasville Road. So currently, before the work was being done, all traffic would either come in or out off of Jeslin and then exit on Nicholasville Road here. Okay. And the properties were separated by a four to five foot tall brick wall all the way down the lot, except for a little portion here that was a little walkway that allowed a connection there. And basically the work that was done, they removed the brick wall and all this landscaping and paved the entrance, paved an entranceway between the two properties. So now that traffic that's coming through the drive-through tellers, instead of exiting out onto the busy Nicholasville Road, can drive straight through and exit onto Edgemoor Drive, which is a local road with no sidewalks. So it completely changes the traffic flow in and out of this 2020 Nicholasville Road that has the drive-through teller. Okay, let me see the next slide. Okay yeah as you can see here this is how the flow of traffic was before just off of Jessalyn straight on the Nicholasville Road and now it goes straight through onto Edgemoor as an option. The subject properties are both zoned P1 however the parcels have not been consolidated into a single development plan. The property located at 1950 Nicholasville Road has that residential structure and then the 2020 has the bank and the drive-through and the pass-through creates an additional exit for the property of 2020 Nicholasville Road which allows traffic from the drive-through teller windows and the ATM which is a 24-hour ATM to continue through to the adjacent parcel and exit onto Edgemoor Drive. Prior to the creation of the new exit and pass-through traffic leaving the drive-through teller windows and ATM machine had to go out onto Nicholasville Road. So we noticed this work being done. Members of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association noticed this work being done on September 11, 2020, and they immediately complained to the Office of Building Inspection that a paving project was underway without a required permit. and by the end of the day on September 11th the new opening had already been paved and concrete curbs have been poured and applicable regulations do require a permit for new paving and none had been sought or obtained on September 14th city inspectors visited the subject properties and ordered that the work on the cut through be stopped inspectors further directed that barriers be placed to prevent the new exit from being used. These directives were complied with and then the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association complained in writing on September 28th by letter directed to Jeff Neal, the director of the LFUCG division of traffic engineering, and we requested that no permit authorizing the work in question be issued. In support of this request, the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association argued that the residents of the neighborhood would be adversely impacted by the additional traffic the access road and the new exit for 2020 Nicholasville Road would generate because Edgemoor Drive is a neighborhood street with no sidewalks. An additional traffic resulting from this cut through will cause health and safety problems that have not been adequately addressed or ameliorated in connection with the project. There has been no traffic study performed prior to the creation of what is essentially an access road coming behind both of these properties. As we all know, the intersection of Jeslyn Drive and Nicholasville Road is a congested intersection with a traffic light that sometimes takes quite a while. And what the residents of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association are already seeing is that folks are cutting through now in this little access road behind 2020 Nicholasville Road to avoid the light at the intersection of Nicholasville and Jeslyn. They're exiting onto Edgemore and then they're turning right or left on a Nicholasville Road to avoid that traffic light. there. Nevertheless, a building permit was issued on October 7th, which was after the work on the project had been substantially completed. And I'll show you some pictures of what all this looks like right now. This is a photo that was taken essentially on the first day that the area residents noticed work was being done. And as you can see here, just on the first day, even the The wall had been cut down and the curbs had been paved. This might have been actually taken when it was directed that barriers be put up maybe a couple days later. But this shows that the work was pretty much complete before an application for a paving permit was filed and well before one was issued. And as you can see, this is the ATM machine over here and the end of the drive-through teller lanes. So now somebody's pulling through using these things and then just able to exit straight on through onto Edgemore Drive there. This is a closer view of the paving project, which as you can see, this is the brick wall that was completely removed. And then there was a substantial amount of landscaping that was replaced by paving here to create cut through. Okay, this shows Jesaline Road and this is what it looks like now. Basically off of Jesaline Road, you can see straight over here through to Edgemoor and this is the access road that was created by opening the two properties. And you can see it here from the opposite direction. So as you can see, it's a clear straight shot now through from Jesaline Drive to Edgemoor drive. So our main argument here is that this change, which is essentially adding an entrance and exit to the property at 2020 Nicholasville Road, is a major amendment to the original plan of the original development plan for this property, and that it should have been approved as such by the Planning Commission after a public hearing that would have given the neighborhood an opportunity to be heard on the issue. And while it's in a gray area somewhat, because the zone change here is so old. So it was in the 60s. And there was a zone change request that was recommended for approval. And then in connection with that, because the drive-through teller would not have been permitted even in the new zone, they had to request a variance. And the Board of Adjustment case report on the variance appeal recommended that the drive-through be permitted as a special exception, which I guess in today's parlance would be a conditional use or some sort of variance since it wouldn't otherwise be allowable in the zone. And there were certain conditions though. So if the aforementioned zoning map amendment is approved by the planning commission, it is recommended that the board approve the petitioner's request with the following conditions. Okay. And then my next slide shows the condition that we are interested in here. That all access to the subject property is approved by the city traffic engineer and the state highway department prior to the issuance of the building permit. So even though there was no requirement for a development plan per se that had to be certified, in connection with the zone change request and the special exception for the drive-through, there was a recognition that ingress and egress was an important element of this. And that there needed to be oversight on the plan for that. And that it had to be approved by folks who had specialty in considering these issues. So this has always been a requirement that changes to or that the plan for ingress and egress for 2020 Nicholasville Road should be overseen and approved before being built. And now we would argue that that is sort of been assimilated into the history of this property, such that a change in that should be considered as a development plan change and considered by the Planning Commission. And I'll show you there's additional support for this argument here. So this is why I think Autumn was talking about that as the staff report says, there wasn't a development plan per se that was certified. However, when we filed our open records request to get all the documents related to this zone change and then the special exception for the drive through, we were given this. And it's labeled as a site development plan. And as you can see, here's the building at 2020. Here's Jessalyn Drive in Nicholasville. road and even the site development plan specifically states that all access to the subject property shall be approved by the city traffic engineer and the state highway department prior to the issuance of the building permit so again there's this incorporation of a requirement that ingress and egress be overseen and approved prior to any construction taking place and then you'll see here on the next, even though planning staff doesn't see this as a certified development plan, there is this letter that was in the file and this is a notation on the cover letter for the site development plan that was enclosed. It says here, plans have been approved except for sign and parking spaces. And then it says down here, a separate approval is required by traffic engineering for ingress and egress, a separate approval required by the city fire department. So again, here we have historical information showing that ingress and egress for this property is something that needs to be specially considered. And so it's our position that that should be considered as a change to the development plan that was approved so many years ago. And in fact, it has been operating with just the entrance on Jeslyn and the exit on the Nicholasville Road for 50 years. And now all of a sudden, there are not just two ingress egress, there are three, and one of which empties out onto a local road. So that's a big deal. And it's a big deal to the neighborhood because it increases traffic on their road. And it's a big change in how traffic is handled at this sensitive site. And so we're arguing that a development plan is typically required obviously under section 21-3 of zoning ordinance for a zone change and then amendments to development plans that are not minor also are required to have approval by the planning commission in a public hearing okay and then this slide here shows minor amendments being defined and a minor amendment is defined as some one requirement for it to be considered a minor amendment is that it does not um it does not change the location or cross section of any street and shall not increase the number or change the location of street access points okay so under our current zoning ordinance a certified development plan would be required in connection with the zone change to P1, and any minor changes to the development plan would not need to be approved. However, the addition of an ingress-egress point on the property would be not considered, it wouldn't be considered a minor amendment. It would be considered a major amendment, in which case it would have to have a public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission. And so that is our argument on what should have happened before the paving permit was issued. There should have been some sort of consideration of this major change by the Planning Commission and approval before the paving permit was issued. Alternatively, we are arguing that even if you say, okay, no development plan was required to be certified, so this can't count as a major amendment to the development plan that would require Planning Commission approval, then we can look at, okay, well, this is a conditional use in a P1. A drive-through is not just automatically allowed, okay? And so then this body would have the ability to consider any sort of application to change or expand a conditional use, even if it had been properly approved. And in this case, the planning staff has taken the position that adding this entrance and exit does not increase or expand the drive-through use of the property at 2020, Nickelsville Road. And here we beg to differ on that point because adding an ingress-egress to a drive-through teller situation that before only had one entrance and one exit does expand the use. It allows for more traffic to come and go into and out of the drive-through teller lanes, which in and of itself expands the use by adding traffic, adding people throughout the day. And this is the sort of expansion of a conditional use that should be considered and approved in a public hearing with opportunity for notice and comment to the affected neighborhood. So that's our alternative argument. So and then we also have a third argument, which is essentially combining the properties in this way by opening up this driveway or access road that runs behind the two properties is essentially a de facto consolidation of the properties that did not, was not approved through the proper channels there. And so even though obviously you can't force a property owner to consolidate in this circumstance where there are two properties owned by the same owner and then they're all of a sudden consolidated and add ingress and egress it is a de facto consolidation that should be reviewed and certified and so based on all of this in accordance with the board's authorities that force an article 7-6a relating to conditional uses the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association requests the board to revoke the offending paving permit and order the closure of the access road and restoration of the wall and landscaping between the subject properties until this proposed change can be given the appropriate consideration by the governing body to determine whether it's appropriate under our zoning ordinance. Instead of being performed under the cover of darkness without even applying for even a paving permit and sort of after the fact getting the paving permit, the neighborhood has been forced into a situation where it sees work that hasn't been properly authorized going on its neighborhood they complain in writing they get the work stopped but there's never any opportunity for a public hearing on the issue which will directly impact the neighborhood and then a paving permit issued after the fact and the neighborhood has been forced to pursue a costly appeal just to ensure that our zoning ordinance requirements are being upheld in connection with this sort of work. So thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Winters. Any members of the board have any questions for Ms. Winters? Ms. Winters, you're still sharing the same. Oh, thank you. I will stop sharing. Oh, okay. Is that better? Yeah, that works. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Winters? Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions for Ms. Winters right now, but I will have some comments to make later on if I might. Okay. I'm going to let Ms. Midgett respond to Ms. Winters' presentation. I will note that this reference article 21 and the requirement for a development plan with the zone change. I note that the zoning board has changed since 1954 when this was originally approved. The zone change was approved and then the special exception through the Board of Adjustment was approved. So that's why there's not a development today, or a development plan, I'm sorry. And that the amendments to the development plan cannot be, you can't make amendments to a development plan that doesn't exist. So that's kind of the issue of why this can't go before the Planning Commission is a development plan. And also note that the paving permits do not typically have a public comment component unless they are related to a development plan or a conditional use. In this case, we made the argument that an development plan was not required and that additional use was not required because the drive-thru facilities were not being expanded. That is why there was no public comment requirement for the neighbors to have a comment on this issue. I'm happy to answer any other questions. Any questions for Ms. Midyot? I don't know if this is the question, but what are we voting on in particular? I get a little confused about that. Well, that's a fair question because this is an administrative appeal appealing the issuance of a paving permit. the paving permit that was issued, in fact, after the fact, after a substantial portion of the paving had been completed, the paving was on his own property owned by the bank. And so, and so, in answer to the question is, is notice required for the issuance of paving permit and of course that's the answer is no and that's what that's what's being contested in this in this appeal so it is uh and and this winner's argument as i understand it uh is that the there is a de facto expansion of the drive-through facilities by creating a separate egress from the property that can be and is being used by either customers in the bank or people that want to drive through the property because now they have the option of continuing on through to Edgemore if they're coming from Jessalyn or they could probably even come off of Nicholasville Road and turn left into that newly created paved area and go to Edgemore as well. So her argument is that the drive-thru has been expanded because traffic has three options where it only had two options before. I'm sorry, Tommy. No, that's basically, as I understand it, that's what the controversy is. I'm out of it saying that the drive-thru has not been expanded because the drive-thru itself has the same numbers of teller windows. And so the drive-thru has not been expanded, so it's not an expansion. That seems to be the dispute of fact. So the Division of Building Inspection, they were the authority that looked at this, be it after the fact, and made the determination that it was not expanding use and it was not required to be added or approved to the development plan and those other items. There would have been a planning sign off as well as part of that payment application. appeal to kind of elaborate on it, because I think your original question was, the appeal is to contest the issuance of the payment permit, which was issued by building inspection. So the options, there are a number of conclusions that the board could come to. You could act to disapprove the request, which is what we've recommended, and that would be upholding the division of building inspection's decision to issue that permit, and the permit was issued correctly. The other conclusions that you could come to based on Ms. Winter's argument are that the permit should not have been issued because there should have been a development plan, or that the permit should not have been issued because there should have been a conditional use application. So those are sort of the three conclusions that the board could come to and make a motion on. And the issue is not whether there's an expansion, but the issue is whether or not the permit should have been issued. The arguments are that there is an expansion or is not an expansion. But so if they if the applicant for a building permit felt that and I guess building inspection agreed that it would create an expansion, and then an application for a conditional use or expansion of the conditional use would have been appropriate. But simply a building permit, simply a building, a paving permit, I'm sorry, not a building permit, a paving permit. The issuance of a paving permit, the building inspection would not make a determination of whether or not that was an expansion, would they? Perhaps Mr. Bryan or Mr. Parker could tell us about that. Do you make a determination when you're issuing a paving permit of whether there's an expansion of the use? Well, not really. This gets submitted simultaneously to planning, engineering, traffic engineering, and environmental policy if there's landscaping required in this too. And we simply administer the permit by accepting the sign-off. So the expansion question would have been determined by planning in my estimation. And they signed off on it. And engineering, I guess, had no water runoff issues that they had to deal with. They signed off. Traffic engineering signed off. And so did our environmental policy. So our role in this is basically when all the agencies make their signoffs, we issue the permit. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any other questions for Mr. Bryant? I have one for Mr. Parker. Does this change? Is this a concern for traffic engineering? It is not. I believe what occurred was the applicant asked the wrong question. I saw these plans several months ago. prior to September. And I reviewed those plans. I believe the Division of Engineering also reviewed those plans. The applicant asked if they needed a land disturbance permit. Because this is below a one acre threshold, they do not need a land disturbance permit. So I believe what occurred was they thought, I don't need a land disturbance permit. I just need a paving permit. So I went through the building inspection. When traffic engineering reviewed this plan, one of the comments that was made is they're seeing a lot of traffic trying to avoid the Jeslin Drive signal. The previous configuration would have allowed traffic to enter the parking lot exit out onto Nichols Hill Road and make a right turn. Even with the current configuration now, it is still easier to do that simply because if you go straight, Division of Traffic Engineering required additional speed control. One of the concerns that was expressed by the neighborhood was speeding through that parking lot. So we required a speed table and two speed bumps that were configured between where that wall was and the parking lot next door. So you would have to cross three traffic calming devices before you made it to Edgewood, where if you made a left turn to get out on Nicholson Road in the previous parking lot, you would only cross one. so it would actually be easier to just continue what the movement that you did previously to exit out now there may be some traffic uh that is cutting through and making a left turn on the edge more however it is a safer movement if there is a resident who is lives on edge more and they come up uh jeslin if they use that access that is a safer traffic movement to drive through there than having to exit out onto nicholsville road travel down nicholsville road then make a right turn back onto Edgemore if they're using it as a cut-through. We tried to deter that with the traffic calming in the parking lot, but there are people that do use parking lots as cut-throughs. However, if this plan had been submitted prior to the paving permit had been issued, we would have signed off before the work would have begun. So we didn't require any more than what we would have, but we wouldn't have required any less either. Okay, but you do acknowledge that it does provide an additional egress from the bank property onto Edgemore that didn't exist before. Yes, we do. And because that built, I believe the house was either vacant or had not been used in several years, I am sure that they are seeing additional cars more so than what they had in the previous six months to a year, simply because the property was basically vacant. I'm not sure if the property had been a commercial business or a professional office, that traffic would not have been exiting out onto Edgemore already, but that's hypothetical completely. The property owner is present in the FBI. Okay. The owner of the bank. Okay. Okay. I'm not sure that we need to hear from the owner of the property because the dispute part doesn't involve them now unless a member of the board has a question for the property owner. I don't know that we need to hear from them, but I'm glad that they're in attendance and listening. Do the members of the board understand what the issue is and what Ms. Winters' appeal concerns? And I think as a matter of practice or as a practical matter, her concern is correct that there may be additional traffic that exits onto Edgemoor using that paved area that the bank has elected to do on their property, whether or not that is burdensome or whether or not that requires application for conditional use, the staff has determined that it does not. And that's why the staff recommended disapproval of the appeal. And as we know, the issuance of a paving permit doesn't require a notice to the public or application or hearing like that. But Ms. Winters is arguing that the effect of the paving has resulted into increased traffic onto Edgemore. And I would say that Mr. Parker and the staff would concede that that's true. but that doesn't negate or is not sufficient grounds for negating the application for a paving program. Is that a fair summary? So, Ms. Lakers, would you like to respond? Yes, thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to have just a brief rebuttal just to clarify that we have alternate bases for relief today. So our first argument is that the paving permit should not have been issued until the Planning Commission considered what is in effect a major amendment to the development plan for this site. Okay, so if it had a development plan, which we have seen today was a part of the historical file, then to add this ingress egress point out on the edge more would have required them to file an application with the planning commission for a major amendment to their development plan. And in connection with that, the planning commission would have considered the application. There would have been an opportunity for public notice and comment. And the conversations we're having here today about how it would impact the neighborhood or the increase in traffic all would have been considered by the planning commission. And the planning commission would have had to vote to approve that major development plan change before the paving permit could have been issued. So that's our first argument. Our second argument is even if you say the development plan doesn't apply to this situation because it's old and it didn't have an official certified development plan when the zone change was approved back in the 60s, we still have this conditional use issue because a drive-through teller is not permitted in a P1 zone unless it's a conditional use. And so anytime you get an expansion of that, then you would have to go get approval from Board of Adjustment, which is, again, an opportunity for public notice and comment, which did not occur. And so we're arguing the paving permit should not have been issued because that was a process that had to occur before the paving permit was issued. So I just wanted to clarify. Yes, I think, thank you, Ms. Winters. I think we do understand that. And I think the rebuttal of that, and Ms. Midian, you can respond as well, but I think the rebuttal of that is, partially at least, that in the staff's recommendation, reason number C, it acknowledges that the new paving doesn't provide an additional means for customers to it does provide an additional means of egress but it doesn't increase the or expand the drive through itself so that's the issue before that's the issue before the board and i'm not making an argument. I think I'm just trying to summarize the arguments that they, would you like to say something else? I would agree with what you just said. If the owner had come to me and asked if they needed to come to the board for an expanded additional use in order to do this, I wouldn't have said that they did not. And whenever the paving permit went through and their weather zoning sign off, our planner who signed off on that came to that same conclusion. inevitably so that's that's our justification for why we do not feel that in a difficult use for your pardon situation okay mr mead uh mr mead has raised his hand to speak from the audience yeah mr mead are you who are you here i can i I have my video. I turned on video at the beginning. Can you hear me? We can hear you. We can hear you, yes. We can't see you. I don't know why. That's okay. We prefer that members of the community do not show their video unless they are an applicant. Okay. We can hear you, though. Okay. Well, I'm Andy Mead. I live at 121 Edgemore Drive. and it was my wife and I out for a morning walk with the dog who discovered that the bank was connecting our street to Jeslyn Drive without bothering to get a permit. So we started asking questions. We found out that the manager of the bank was on vacation that week. So we went over to the paving crew and said, who's in charge? The supervisor was home sick that day. But I said, Do you have a permit? They said, oh, yes, we always have permits. So my wife, he didn't have it on him. My wife called the bank and asked to speak to someone. So someone, I think, from Columbus, Ohio called us back. And he said, oh, this is just for staff parking. We wanted more parking for our staff, which was obviously not true. Jeff Neal of Traffic Engineering says that the bank told him the same thing. So it's too bad that you're not hearing from the bank because I would like answers to that. Let me tell you a little bit about Edgemore. I've lived here for 26 years. When I moved in, I had twins who were six months old. When you say no sidewalks, it doesn't sound that bad. There's a blind hill toward the western end. When you're pushing a double stroller up a street and cars are coming by and you're approaching the hill and you're trying to get around a car, there's another car coming. It's a pretty scary thing. This is just adding to that. And about the only other thing I want to say is that I read the stamp report and they said this is just another exit from the drive-through. It is much more than that. I live fairly near the bank. I walk through there a lot. I've not only seen a lot of people go there to use the bank, but a lot of people are just using it as a cut through. If you're sitting there on Jessalyn Drive and you've got a red light and you're going in toward town, you're going to do those few speed bumps to get through there. And we just don't need more traffic where people are walking their dogs, walking. Kids are riding bikes. People are pushing strollers. It is a bad deal for us. and we feel let down by the bank being a bad neighbor and the city for approving this over what is obviously some serious problems with it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dean. Any questions for Mr. Dean? We do have a few, another hand raised, and maybe I'm going to ask Mr. Page to speak on behalf of the bank as well. Jamie Gage is present for third party appeal for the bank. Mr. Gage, is he the phone call? No, he didn't. But as Mr. Bean said, it'd be helpful to hear from the bank. Yeah, and I don't mind hearing from the bank if the bank is... We just need them to raise their hand electronically. We can't find them in the woods. We've got it listed with the ADRA 1950. There we go. Who is speaking? This is Mr. Gage, Jamie Gage. I am with NCORE Facility Services. I was actually the project manager for the contractor for this. APM Payton was the subcontractor. Okay. So just a brief background. Our engineering firm, IMED Corporation, originally approached the planning commission with this. Very young on this past year. Admittingly, we were the ones who did, as Mr. Parker stated, ask the incorrect question. We asked if we needed a land disturbance permit, and we're originally told that we did not, and mistakenly took that as, well, we don't need anything. um so long story short um when we did find out that we needed something we did stop the work um and immediately uh tried to take care of that issue um i would like to point out that the original plans that were presented uh to the planning commission did not include the speed table or the speed bumps and we did work with Mr. Parker kind of on the back end there and going back to our engineers and saying okay now can you add these additional requirements that Mr. Parker is requesting. They did revise the plans to add the additional traffic control, if you will, which was obviously a lot of additional cost to my client, but they were, U.S. Bank was very happy to do so. I mean, there was no pushback on this whatsoever. We were glad to do whatever we were asked to do. And I do apologize for the ignorance, if you will, of not knowing or not asking the correct question. But I do want to point out that we made every attempt to make this right and to work with all parties involved. Gage, I forgot to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand? You swear or affirm that the testimony you have given and that you will give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any questions by the board for Mr. Gage? I would like to ask, this is Mr. Clark, I'd like to ask Mr. Gage, what's the real purpose for this pavement and the fact that this opens up an avenue between the two roads? What benefit is that to the bank? I'm not sure Mr. Gaines can answer that question. He was a contractor for the bank. Is that correct? Yes, I work with the bank and have worked with the bank and was initially told, which I don't mind answering what I was told. That would be good. But I was told, and I can share my screen if you'd like. But basically, it was additional parking for staff in the back area where the clay brick wall was. They wanted that removed to add additional parking for the staff in the rear parking lot there of the, I think that's the 1950 Nicholasville Road. And I'm sorry, I've got a train behind my house. But I was told it was for additional parking for the staff. Previously, the staff had parked up front and walked across that little walkway that was discussed. But they wanted additional parking for the staff there in the rear. Mr. Gaze, do you think that the bank was aware of the problem that opening that avenue up would create for the neighborhood? I don't think that they thought that it would be significant just due to the fact that that actual street, I mean, that has two separate means of egress, if you will. and to be honest it wasn't thoroughly discussed between myself and the bank about the concerns and those current concerns were never really addressed as far as me as the contractors concerned until Mr. Parker became involved and at that point they were addressed. Okay. Any other questions to Mr. Gage or to any of the other people who have testified? We do have one more person who has raised our hand. Okay. Ms. Kim Gerstony. I'm sorry, Kim. Yes, I am. Tell us your name, please. My name is Kim Combs-Gersony. I live at 205 Tahoma Road. Have you been sworn in? No, I have not. Did you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to point out I've been a neighbor in Southern Heights for 20 years now and I also serve on the board as treasurer there were a couple of things when the staff made their presentation that I I wanted to point out one is if you review their presentation and you look at the the first image that they show the number of cars that you see parked around those buildings is basically what it looks like every day. When I heard that the reason was for more employee parking, my jaw dropped because there's never anyone parked hardly at all in either of those parking spaces, parking lots for either one of those properties. And in particular, the one, the little house, maybe there's two or three cars parked out front. But so it felt like that didn't seem like the purpose, the main purpose. What this does, it does effectively create this cut-through road, almost an access road. And one of the things that the staff pointed out today is they said if access were to be closed off to Nicholasville Road, then this could be a problem for the neighborhood roads. Right now, there's a current major study underway along Nicholsville Road, and it's not complete yet. It should be complete, I think, early January was the latest. It's Imagine Nicholsville Road. That study is supposed to inform on, among other things, access management for properties along Nicholsville Road, and if the study should recommend closing off the access to nicholsville road at this pinch point which is where all seven lanes on nicholsville road become five heading north into town i believe this cut through street that that's been created this access road will have even more impact on our local neighborhood roads you know edgemore It's a local street with no sidewalks, and these properties are surrounded by residential single-family use homes. We're also close to schools where buses don't transport our kids, they walk. So these are just my concerns. I just wanted to bring that up. If you look at all the other images that have been provided today, again, on different days, at different times, there's hardly anybody parked in that parking lot for either property. if the reason for requesting the paving permit was to provide a way a means between the between the parcels of property for employees of the bank to park or to have additional parking there's no requirement that they park either place I think it was just requesting for permission to park. So it doesn't mean they have to park there. But I understand your concern. Any questions? I'm sorry, go ahead. Currently, anybody that works in the bank itself can park in the parking lot that surrounds that little residential vacant building. and they just use the the sidewalk that is on their property not the public city sidewalk but one that goes from that parking lot to the bank parking lot so it it you know there's there's ways to park and if there's an overflow parking needed i believe they already have it and access to it Thank you ma'am. Any questions? Thank you for letting me speak. Any questions to the witness? Any other, are there any other comments, public requests to speak concerning this application, of this appeal. I don't see any. Does the board have any questions of staff or the applicant or any of the other people that have testified today? Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make some comments if it would be appropriate at this time. Sure, go ahead. Well, first I'd like to say a big thank you to the staff because they do an incredible job in making these applications understandable. And I appreciate what they've done. And I understand the constrictions on them that they follow the ordinances, the laws strictly as they should, which I appreciate. I also think that Ms. Winters made a good presentation as well. I tried my best to follow her arguments. But I've spent a lot of time on this. When I saw this coming up and saw what the ultimate conditions would be, I was very disturbed. I've driven it. I've looked at it. And I just see a disaster in making. I think this, if you've ever stopped at the stoplight at Lake Nixosville, just on the Nicholasville Road, you know, sometimes you'll take at least two stoplights to get through there. Now, I don't live in the area, but I've been through there a lot. This is going to be a disaster. And this is, I make these comments seriously, but without some understanding of the need to be concerned. I think it is inappropriate. I think the permit should not have been issued until a great deal more discussion has been had. I think this, beyond what the staff can tell us, what Ms. Winters can say, I think this comes down to what is common sense for the neighborhood that we're concerned with. I think it is a great concern to this neighborhood. And sometimes this board has to think about what's right for the citizens, what common sense tells us about this situation. And common sense tells me that having an avenue behind the bank and behind that house is simply not appropriate, should not be allowed under any circumstances. Now, what I need to understand is I don't know how the rest of the board feels about it, but I wouldn't know how to make a motion to make the appropriate to block this paving. And I guess I should also say that this is more than just a paving. This is an access route through this property. so I feel very strongly about it and maybe I've overstated my case but I think it's a mistake and I think this board ought to be very concerned about it. Okay thank you Mr. Clark. Anybody else wish to make a comment before we try to dispose of this application of this appeal in some form or fashion? Well, if nobody wishes to talk, the next step is somebody can make a motion. I'll accept a motion from somebody from the board. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion, but I'm not sure how to state the motion. Do we have some legal assistance here that could help to know how to state the motion? The question is, the issue before the board is an appeal to contest the issuance of the craving permit. And that's the question before us. So if you want to ask the board to make a determination that the permit is not appropriately granted, I think that would be the opposition motion. That would affirm the appeal. Ms. Jones is available for you to consult with if you would like. I'll just note that the question again, I think what Mr. Glover was saying, is that the question is whether or not the correct procedures were followed and whether or not the paving permit was issued correctly. Unfortunately, whether or not that has an impact on the neighbors is really not a part of this appeal. It's a question of whether or not the paving permit should have been issued based on the procedural requirements. and as we talked about earlier I think we acknowledge that there is an impact on the neighborhood because of the paving that was conducted on the property owned by the bank but the question before us is whether or not the permit was issued correctly so if you want to try to craft a motion like that, that's the question before us. I believe we have to cite some facts as to why we think that what was the error in issuing the permit. Yeah, I think this would be a good time. Ms. Whitman, do you want to make a comment or statement? I want to make a comment. This one is kind of a tough one for me because I think they probably had the right to do what they did. It was not their intent to open up an excess road. That was not the intent at all. The intent was to open it up for parking or just for their use. But what has happened is that people are cutting through there, and I understand what Mr. Clark said. I go through that way frequently, and that stoplight is a long one, and there's a lot of traffic at that corner. And I'm wondering if there's some way that the bank could deter that traffic that's cutting through. I know we see signs every now and then, but this is not a fruit street or I don't know what the terminology would be, but is there a way that the bank could maybe even put a temporary block up occasionally to keep traffic from going through and not making it a permanent access road? i understand the plight of the the residents that live there um uh and and i have never cut through and done that but but now that i know about it when i'm waiting for that light i might think about it but but um no i probably wouldn't but um i don't know that thought came to my mind that that perhaps the bank has could have a way of of cutting down the traffic that goes through there and make it their local traffic and not an access road. Sure. And I would think that the bank, if the bank observes traffic that's utilizing that access, ingress and egress, more than it has in the past before that paving was done, it would be in its own interest to prevent people from cutting through and disturbing their patrons and customers who are trying to use the bank services and the drive-thru teller and the ATM that are there. So that's what banks do when they want to be good neighbors to neighborhood and neighborhood associations. So I think that's something that's on the bank. It's probably outside our purview and outside certainly outside the application for the appeal that's before us yes i agree with you let me let's let's do this let's uh let's take a 10 minute recess and mr clark if you and uh miss jones want to uh converse uh you can use this time this uh we're going to take a 10 minute recess uh and perhaps you can use that time and we'll come back on in 10 minutes and see if there's some way to resolve this issue without being here all day. All right, I will do that. The board is in recess. Ms. Jones, are you here? Okay, so for Lex TV, we're going into recess. Mr. Clark, I'll have to give contact information to you. Thank you. Okay, we've taken a break. We've allowed Mr. Clark to consult with legal. Harry, do you have a motion to make? Is Mr. Needham around? Let's see, before you do, Harry, and you're muted still, Harry, but Mr. Needham, are you still with us? We're missing both the chairs. Mr. Walker let us know that he would likely not be returning. He had a power outage issue. Okay. I've not heard anything for Mr. Needham. We've lost Mr. Walker. We've also can't find Mr. Needham, so we're down to a minimum quorum of four, and that's our fair minimum. So please no one go off camera. Yeah, please stay on camera. We need a break, let us know. Yeah. Ed hasn't signed out, so hopefully he's still with us. um uh yes miss winchers do you have a motion oh i'm sorry i was just gonna say i do see chad needham on the zoom maybe he's just not able to um speak for whatever reason he's on the zoom still okay um let's see do we have it on our list yeah Mr. Needham, can you hear us? Okay. Mr. Clark, do you have a motion? I was waiting on the specific motion from Ms. Jones, but I'll go ahead and try to do it myself. Wait a minute. It came from Ms. Wade instead. It came from Tracy Wade. Because Ms. Jones didn't have her computer here today. All right. I will move for approval of BLNL POA 20-60 Southern Heights Neighborhood Association third party appeal to revoke the issuing of a paving permit by the Division of Building Inspection in a professional office zone on property located at 1950 and 2020 Nicholsville Road. and based on the fact that the paving permit was issued by the division of building inspection in arrow because the paving creates an expansion of the drive-through facilities associated with a bank located at 2020 nicksville road an amended conditional use permit should have been requested from the board of adjustment prior to the issuing issuance of a paving permit so move okay thank you mr clark do we have a second Do we have a second from any members of the board? Going once, going twice. Do we have a second from any members of the board? If we have no second, the motion will fail for lack of a second. So I'll ask for the third and last time, do we have a second to Mr. Clark's motion? We have no second. Mr. Clark, your motion has failed. So we need a motion to, we need a different motion, another motion. Would anybody on the board like to make a different motion? I'm not surprised I didn't get a second. That's okay. I'll make it. I thank you Ms. Carter. Do we have a second to Ms. Carter's motion? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman seconds it. All those in favor of that motion raise your hand. Four in favor. Any opposed? All opposed. Okay. Motion carries. The appeal is denied. Thank you very much. Okay, our next issue, our next case, I'm going to take Keith National Corporation next. We've already heard some from that. So Mr. Murphy, if you're still around, you will bring your case back up. It's PLNBOA 20-52, Keith National Corporation. Request for a variance. Mr. Murphy are you here he is here well I'll come back up I'd like to ask you a question okay do I have the podium Mr. Chairman you do okay thank you very much we appreciate your letting us talk. We've been trying to conference as best we can through this pause. I know that we have one, Mr. Needham, I don't think he was here at the beginning when we discussed this for a while, but we are, I'm representing Jeremy Mash and his brother and a couple of other people who would like to build an industrial building on this property on West Main Street. It's across the street from the cemetery. It's next to the Messer construction building. And we talked where you go any further. I can't remember if we swore you in, did we? Actually, no, I had not sworn me in. And I think we need to swear in Jeremy Mash, perhaps, and Steve Garland of Integrated Engineering and Evan Yon of the Yon Architecture Firm. Okay. Are all these people on the line or are they in the audience? I see Mr. Mash has a photograph up for him. And there is Mr. Garland, I see. And Evan Yon has just gotten on there. Mr. Yon may be only on, there he is, he's on video. So I think we have our people. Jeremy Mash, if you could get on video so you can raise your hand and swear, I think that would be helpful. Okay. there we go okay all four of you raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you very much okay mr murky go ahead and thank you very much as we have mentioned uh the we are requesting a variance the setback in the i1 zone this is an industrial zone is 20 feet we are requesting to put a building we requested 10 feet set back from West Main Street. We're doing it because the building, the lot is a shallow lot, but we have design reasons or site reasons. It's a shallow lot. And as I mentioned to you, we are trying to put the building up closer to Main Street for a couple reasons. That way, we can put our parking behind the building in accord with good urban design standards. So when you drive along Main Street, you're not looking at cars and pickup trucks, that sort of thing. You're looking at our building. And also because there's a grade drop off of 15 feet from one corner to the rear corner. And so we're going to have a shorter appearance of the building along Main Street. It'll appear taller in the rear. It's going to be one story. It'll have high ceilings because it is an industrial building. And we discussed two requests we were making to modify the conditions. and I'll try to put those back up. I think I've got them somewhere here on my... There were the requested changes to the conditions. We talked about the fact we're asking to eliminate condition 2A, which is the condition which relates to a covered pedestrian access on West Main Street. And that's because, as we discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on the development plan last week, we were requested by the pedestrian planner to have a five-foot sidewalk from West Main to the rear of the building, which will be our entrance, which we now have. And if we tried to put an entrance on the side facing West Main Street, that is 10 feet above the elevation of the floor. So it makes no sense to do that. The main discussion was about my second request that is about condition 2B, which requests that we articulate the building. In other words, have a differentiated setback of at least five feet in depth and eight feet in width at a minimum. And we have a difficulty with supplying the articulation in this. And there's a couple of reasons. One is the site reason. And of course, I talked about we want to have this up toward Main Street for aesthetic reasons and to allow fire truck access to the rear. And it's a tight turning ratio. I showed you all our engineering auto turn diagram, which shows our fire trucks being able to make it at a 10 foot setback. There are design reasons. We have a better presentation along Main with it closer to Main. we managed to keep our parking in the rear there is cost reasons and because the type of the building this is an industrial building it's made out of metal and steel girders it's not wood so it was going to be difficult to us to make the articulation in the building without great cost and also I mentioned to you the fire reasons and one I'll stop my share screen here but One reason we wanted to talk to you a little bit more was because my clients are very mindful of design issues. As a matter of fact, and I did not mention this to you before, the building is being designed by the Yon Architecture Firm in Chicago, Illinois. and of course I know a lot of architects and I know that the Yon architecture firm is one of the leading architecture firms in the world and is known worldwide for its design. It's designed all over the world, transportation terminals, major public buildings, and they are very concerned about design. So I asked Evan Yon, his father is Helmut Yon, who is the founder of the Yon Law Firm. Evan Yon works in the Yon Law Firm as well. And I asked him to discuss the design issues on why we want to have a straight face along West Main Street. So Evan, if you would, I'll turn it over to you to address those issues. Thank you, Dick. And I want to thank the board for giving me the opportunity to just talk a little bit about the architectural elements of the building. And like Mr. Murphy was stating, the Yon firm has designed many notable buildings and we've won many awards for our urban centered designs. And, you know, one of the things that attracted us to this project when Jeremy MASH brought it to us was its siting on Main Street and the fact that it does serve as a prominent gateway to the revitalized downtown area. And with the expansion into West Town Branch Park and the New Rupp Arena, we see this as a great opportunity to serve as a nice gateway to that urban core. given the fact that it is an industrial building and many times industrial buildings are sort of not given the design thought that they should we took an extreme design sensitivity to this building and really gave it an updated aesthetic and so some of the elements without sharing renderings that we're we're considering for this building are clear story windows, and we're breaking up that facade that's on Main Street. So it's going to have a continuous clear story window that equals 20% of the facade as is being prescribed by the urban design standard. But additionally, every 24 feet or so, it's broken up with an architectural element that makes it seem like instead of one building, there's going to be six buildings there. And even though they don't have entrances on the main street, there's still an approachable scale to the building because it's under a two to one ratio. And therefore, you know, setback from the street is proportionate with that height. And, you know, we're taking advantage of the change in grade by hiding the taller aspect of the building in the back and with it, the parking. Additionally, you know, we're trying to encourage sort of the activation of that part of main street by potentially putting in maybe a picnic area in the front yard or in the backyard that employees could use to sit out and enjoy the open space there and the green space. Additionally, we're spending some additional design thought and money in creating a parapet around the building on all four sides so that you don't see the steel roof. And it provides a unified facade on all angles of the building so that when you're driving by, whether it be on the east, the west or right in front of the building, you're seeing this consistent elevation of the building, which gives it a very strong urban aesthetic, not so much an industrial aesthetic. It's made of industrial materials, but we wanted to sort of bridge that gap between contemporary modern urban design and an industrial design. Additionally, on the front, we do have signage we're considering some um sensitive um night lighting that will make the building again feel more like um a building that's further down on main that is a um a commercial building and then i think that you know the other thing to just consider is that um the cost sensitivity like uh mr murphy was saying is that when you're building still building it does make it difficult to jog the building in and out because of the type of building type or the building materials that we're using make it difficult to sort of create all those undulations in the building. And then I would say that historically Main Street has had a consistent facade on a lot of its blocks. And that's one of the things we looked at when we started coming up with the precedents for the unified facade on Main was that there's other blocks on Main Street that have this consistent wall of buildings, even though they're broken up every 30 feet or so by a different type of facade. Okay. Thank you very much. So we wanted to mention that to you. what we requested in 2B was to add a sentence saying that if the entire building is set back at 15 feet, no articulation would be required. As you know, the articulation discussion started because there was a discussion that in some time in the future, there may be a need to slightly widened West Main Street at this location so that there can be an outbound left turn lane at Buchanan Street, and it would possibly require some additional frontage off of this property to allow the inbound traffic to veer to the right slightly to go around the left turn lane at the intersection on the other side of the Messer construction building. So we understand we had talked about possibly setting part of this back at 10 and part of it at 15, but as we looked into the design standards, we felt probably it would be easier to set the whole building back at 15. That way we have some additional right-of-way if it's ever needed for that widening, but the articulation would be very difficult. I do want to mention, of course, that the Messer building, which is between us and Buchanan Street, is set back at 10 feet. And so if they ever do that widening, it's going to have a direct impact on the Messer building. But with this impact, it would not require destruction of any part of our building in order to supply the taper there. So So I wanted to let you all know we are sensitive to the design. We perhaps our folks do not agree with the need for an articulation. And that's that's the issue we have with you on that. So we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. We have a lot more information about it. But I think we've covered the two issues that are before you. OK, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Does any member of the board wish to ask Mr. Murphy any questions? or I assume we can ask Mr. Young or Mr. Bash or what's your engineer's name? I'm sorry. Steve Garland, Integrated Engineering. Yes, sir. So Mr. Garland, we can ask him questions as well. Anybody on the board wish to ask any questions of any of these gentlemen, Mr. Murphy has proposed in his application, amendment to the application to delete section 2b and to amend section 2 i'm sorry delete 2a and amend 2b with the language that he put up there so any other questions for mr murphy or anybody else on the applicant side i don't see any hands going up i don't see anybody unmuting themselves so are you ready to vote and what's your pleasure I'll entertain a motion hello I'll make a motion okay all right I'm I move we approve PLNBOA 20-52 Keith National Corporation's request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 to 10 in order to construct a new building within the infill and redevelopment area in a light industrial I-1 zone on property located at 858 and 862 West Main Street. Based on the two staff recommendations and subject to the, are we still at the three conditions, subject to the following three conditions? your it's your option to uh move to adopt the conditions that are stated or mr burpee's uh amended conditions i feel the amended conditions work fine for me so i'm in made so i make this recommendation based on the uh following conditions um submitted by Mr. Murphy and his team. We have a second. Second. Ms. Carter seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. Motion carries. Application as amended is approved. uh good luck with the project mr murphy and thank you all very much appreciate it okay the last case on the docket is pln voa 20-65 lisa you know it's a it's an administrative appeal mr no are you still with us i wouldn't blame you if you weren't but if you are let's bring you up and thank you for your patience because we all have to have had patience today yes sir are you here I am did we lose you Dr. Gonneau feel free to turn on your video video and audio there you go okay thank you it it made me rejoin or something so yeah we're uh I'm going to swear you in even though you don't go first so raise your right hand you swear or probably tell the truth the whole truth and other but the truth? Yes, always. Okay. Because this appeal has been recommended for disapproval, the staff goes first in their presentation, so stand by and we'll listen to the staff report and then you can respond. Okay. All right, and I will share my screen. All right, this application is a third party appeal to consent the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy by the Division of Building Inspection in an agricultural rural AR zone on property located at 75.4 Old Richmond Road. This subject property is one that the board is pretty familiar with, a triangular shaped property, sorry, located between I-75 and Old Richmond Road. In September, an application was approved for a plant nursery at this location, subject to nine conditions. The appellant before you today has also filed an appeal of Circuit Court contesting the issuance of that conditional use, so it will be particularly important in today's discussion that we stick to the issue at hand, which is the issuance of the temporary certificate. You can see not whether or not the conditional use was appropriate in this location, just to keep that in mind. So because the existing greenhouse structure already exists on the property and no alterations are being proposed to that structure, a building permit was not required. However, a certificative occupancy is required before the user can commence the operation of the business in this location. And it should be noted that a lack of a certificative occupancy doesn't preclude the property owner from being on the property or for getting the site ready or set up to operate the proposed business. but they can't begin operating the business use of the property within the structure until the certificate of occupancy is issued. So for existing structures, a certificate of occupancy requires an inspection by the Division of Fire to ensure that it is safe to occupy and meets the building code standards for fire. of the building code standards for safety. It also has to comply with the provisions of any applicable building codes, regulations, or ordinances, and that would include the nine conditions that were approved in association with the conditional use permit. So a TCO is often issued by building inspection in order to allow the property owners to set up the interior aspect of a business operation before all of the requirements for a full certificate of occupancy has been met. Typically, a temporary certificate will allow for things like stocking a business or installing equipment or fixtures that are related to the use or for training employees on site. So building inspection issued a temporary certificate of occupancy on November 3rd after the greenhouse was infected by the Division of Fire. The notes on the document issued on November 3rd say that it's a temporary CO good for 90 days. This is to allow the use of the greenhouse in accordance with BOA restrictions while Acton Farm obtains paving permit and completes all site requirements per BOA condition. A permanent COA will be issued after all BOA conditions are met. So there were no recorded limitations on that temporary CO that were placed on the property owner as far as hours of activity or the utilization of the existing driveway related to the temporary certificate. The appellant has indicated that she believes that a bond should have been posted prior to the issuance of the temporary CO. This is based on Article 18-5b of the zoning ordinance, and there is no record of building inspection requiring this bond. However, Article 18-5 refers to landscape requirements of Article 18. In this instance, the landscape requirements of the property were imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Conditions. They are not Article 18 requirements, so the bond is not required for the Board's imposed landscape requirements. It would maybe be good practice for building inspections to do that, but it is not a requirement. So staff is recommending disapproval of the third party appeal and the Division of Building Inspections issue of the temporary certificate be upheld because the Division of Building Inspections issue the temporary certificate of occupancy in accordance with Article 5-5A, the zoning ordinance, to allow the property owner to ready the greenhouse and the property for its use of the plant nursery. Property owner is actively making efforts to establish assistance in accordance with the board's approval of a conditional use for plant nursery subject to denying conditions and is in the process of applying for the necessary permit. So again, this is sort of the typical process that while you're working towards achieving full compliance, building inspection is an issue that's temporary certificate in this case for 90 days. And there are representatives from Division of Building Inspection here today, and they can likely provide us an update on the permitting process and where the applicant stands as far as getting those things completed and working towards the full certificate of opportunity. So it might be a good idea for Joe to speak on that if he is intimate still. And I'll go ahead and stop my chair. Okay. You want Mr. Bryant to speak now? We can do that? Yeah. Sure, go ahead. A little bit of update on that. And this case was a little unusual because normally when we do a certificate of occupancy application for an existing building, there is no site requirements associated with it. we issued this temporary one in recognition that there was BOA requirements for the site, but we felt it was only reasonable that we had to allow the Acton Farm some time to accomplish these. So that was at least our thought while we did the temporary. Since then, he has worked to complete all these. And as of this earlier today, he had completed all of the requirements, all the site requirements. And so we have updated that to a complete final CEO for this project. So that's the update on this. Okay. Any questions from the board to Ms. Midgett or to Mr. Bryan? I have a question. So if this is appealing to temporary CO and now we have a permanent, Is this the moot case? Yeah, does the permanent certificate of occupancy moot the case concerning the temporary certificate of occupancy? And we'll hear from you, Mr. Noah, in just a minute. We want to get a legal opinion to Ms. Carter's question. Tracy, what have you? Well, I mean, as a practical matter, they now have a permanent CO. Obviously, that has the opportunity to be appealed as well. You know, I don't know what your remedy would be in terms of the temporary CO, but if you want to hear it and determine whether or not it was appropriately issued, you can. But, you know, it's going to be temporary is now going to be superseded by the permanent one that's in the record. So what does that do for the appropriateness of our hearing today? Well, all you would be doing would be finding that the temporary one was somehow issued in error. But without an appeal of the permanent one, the permanent one would stand. So I don't know that you have any remedy against the temporary one at this point. Any questions by the board to Tracy while we've got her up here? Any legal questions you want to raise to her statement about the procedural aspects of the temporary? I've waited a month to be heard about the temporary, so I think I should at least be heard. I'm going to give you a chance to be heard, but I want to ask procedurally, I'm asking the members of the board if they have any questions to Ms. Jones about the procedural effect of the issuance of the completed certificates of occupancy. Any questions from the board to Ms. Jones? I do. So, you know, Dr. Gonneau could be heard, but we wouldn't bring a motion anymore, right? I mean, there's no motion to be had. Well, you can still make a motion as to whether or not the temporary was issued appropriately or not. Mr. Bryant may want to comment on this as well, but I don't know that that would impact the permanent one without an appeal. I mean, you all don't just take on the screening. The screening is not complete, and that is one BOA requirement. So I would argue that it's a point. I'll give you a chance, Ms. Cano, in just a moment. Please mute yourself right now. I'll give you ample opportunity to... Okay, I've sat here since 1.30, so I expect to be heard. I've been here since 1.30, too. I'll give you a chance to be heard. So, Tracy, in your opinion, that the ultimate question, I guess, of the mootness of this particular hearing, How does that issue the completed certificate of occupancy affect the temporary occupancy? Quite frankly, I don't know. What happens to the temporary certificate? Well, the temporary one will go away because there's no permanent one. And if I state this incorrectly, Mr. Bryant, in terms of your process, please weigh in. But as I understand, the temporary one goes away when the permanent one is issued. The temporary one was put in place in order to allow them to do work on the site while they were coming into compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. So, you know, whether or not that temporary one, which is a procedural matter done by the Division of Building Inspection was properly issued can still be a question you often hear. But now the Division of Building Inspection has issued a permanent one. And that one can't be changed in this period. So, you know, even if you all find that there was something wrong in the process and procedure with how the temporary was issued, then there's now in place a permanent one. So the permanent one would also have to be appealed if there's disagreement with the issuance of that permanent one. So, I mean, it seems like a moot matter. However, you know, these third-party appeals are somewhat broad in what they know is allowed to be appealed. and you know Ms. Gano has waited for her opportunity to be heard on this so you know as a practical matter it's not anything you do today is not going to change that there's an issuance of a permanent CO which building inspection determined in their own time frame based on how what they were doing and what they were inspecting in their normal procedure so So it's just the way it came down. But, you know, you all can't comment on the permanent one today. That's not what's before you. So you will be commenting on the process and the procedure of the issuance of the CO and the rationale behind why it was issued and whether or not that was appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Are you saying that even if Dr. Gonneau wanted to address the permanent certificate of occupancy, and even if the board wanted to hear that argument on the permanent certificate, we couldn't do it because that's not what's reported? That's correct. Okay. Because that's a whole different, I mean. I'm sorry to hear that, actually. I mean, I hate to say that, but the way the system is set up to work with these different divisions and to allow for these third party appeals of individual division action. When they come to you, you can only hear what's before you. And since Mr. Bryant told us that, you know, the permanent one was just issued earlier this morning or today, then that information as to how they got to issue the permanent one is not before you. I understand. Yeah, nobody's really, nobody's gone back and looked at what, you know, what they, what they utilize and what they did to base the permanent issue. What's in your record, what's before you, what was appealed to you was the issues of the temporary. Okay, thank you, Tracy. Okay, Dr. Gonneau, what say you? Dr. Gonneau, are you still with us? I see what looks like a frozen screen and that's unfortunate. Are you still with us, Dr. Gonneau? Is she still on the list of people that are on board? There you are. If you could unmute yourself, Dr. Gonneau. Yeah. and did members of the board have any further questions with Ms. Jones? Ms. Whitman you raised your hand before I get to the applicant. Did you have some questions with Ms. Jones? Ms. Whitman? No? Okay Dr. Ganoe you're up. All right. Well as you know I submitted about 200 pages worth of documents that just reflect the time period between September 14th and today. I also submitted several recordings that are my personal documentation of what's gone on across the road. And I would also like to state that my presentation was supposed to be in by Friday at noon. And if Mr. Martin has a presentation, that opposing presentation was not in on that deadline. So I was opposed to that and I've already made that clear to planning. So I'm here today because I've been aggrieved by Michael Acton being given a certificate of occupancy. I would really like to thank Mr. Clark first of all for being the only person in five years to come and look at the property at 7524 Old Richmond Road and actually visiting the site. I believe it gives a different perspective of the situation and an understanding of the information that I've been sharing in order to be able to visualize it. The decisions by this board, as you know, have long-lasting implications and the September 14th BOA meeting, there was almost no discussion about the application for this site other than for Mr. Clark. I'm here fighting for my home, my safety, my privacy, and my property value. It certainly has been difficult working from home through all the disruptions going on outside my front door. All I've ever asked is for the zoning ordinances, processes, and definitions to be followed to do the right thing. I feel I've been treated terribly by this process and that my rights have been squashed. No one in their right mind would continue to do this over and over unless they knew that they were right. No one time have I ever presented here have I had a lawyer representing me at these meetings. I'm going to skip to some of the pertinent stuff that has been brought up here today since he actually already got a permit. It's really amazing. So on December 9th, Xcella was still showing the paving permit as in process. However, a concrete driveway started being poured on December 7th. The drive entrance was completed by the owner and his crew. In Excella, this permit was listed as residential. The word homeowner is listed as the contractor. The engineering permit isn't dated until December 11th. The owner poured the concrete until about 11 a.m. on December 10th And before 2 p.m. on that same day, the city had a truck on site to inspect it. Now in Excella, as of today, that project is being shown as complete, but it's also been changed and not listed as residential. It's been listed as a commercial use, and the square footage has been changed for what has actually been paved, which I think is just really incredible that that document got changed. So he was able to pave it as residential, and then it got changed to commercial afterwards. Let's see. I wondered about a couple of things. First, the concrete drive under the weight of the trucks and trailers that have arrived on site, which I've provided multiple photos and videos of. I also think it's basically an uphill port entrance with a handicapped spot right at the top of the hill, probably not ADA. as a parking spot now exists in the middle of a drive to the main entrance. So you turn in and there's one parking spot marked handicapped with a sign up that's now marking, that's blocking the very main entrance to this spot. Exactly as I witnessed on that day, I'm sorry, as a parking spot now exists in the middle of the drive in the main entrance, how will trucks and trailers enter to pick up the plants and deliver the plants. Exactly as I witnessed on that very day, the 10th, the truck used the unpermitted, unlisted, unpaved entrance that I have complained about many times that have been documented for you. And I think it's a huge safety concern. So without other parking, other than the one marked handicap spot, where will all those vehicles park? Nearly every day, multiple vehicles arrive at this location as shown in photos and videos. Building inspection, Acceler Records note a site plan on file for paving, but that was not received in an open records request after specifically being told not to do any paving until his paving permit was approved. Documents included for the October 20th email. A call in an open records request from October 29th yielded no documents, was told no no records for this address. On 1021 and 11-1, Traffic Engineering Review in Excella was showing as in process. This is contradictory, so something should exist. They work out of a side garage door that's a loading and unloading area for the plant trailers. These vehicles will not fit on the paved portion of the drive now. Now there's only one paved parking spot for disabilities. Is there any even any room for emergency vehicles as I heard in an earlier case? In 2006 when this property was approved for conditional use the performance bond was not done and no screening was ever provided for the property at 7524 Old Richmond Road. As a result the neighbors, neighborhood, and I as part of the neighborhood have been impacted by not being protected from the deteriorating building. Numerous requests for an accurate site plan have been brushed aside or ignored even though this property would need to meet landscaping requirements as per the zoning ordinance as there was a change in use of the property. Even if the temporary occupancy permit was issued every application should have the required documents submitted. Section 18.5 even says the required landscaping has not if the if the required landscaping has not been completed and a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued under section 5-4 of the zoning ordinance a full cash bond or irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution with offices in Fayette County should be posted at that time. The staff report lists all the landscaping that should be done. So I'm going to I'm going to skip here I'm going to go back. So I've been aggrieved by the decision of the building inspection and planning to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy by the following. A temporary certificate of occupancy being issued without the proper buffering and screening, which does not preserve the aesthetic appeal, character, and value of the surrounding neighborhood. A proper site plan is required according to the zoning ordinance for a new use and a performance bond should be required to ensure that it's completed before any certificate of occupancy is given, even temporary. Noise associated with continual operations of large trucks, trailers, and equipment on the property, which is documented by the photos and the videos provided. Environmental impacts associated with the dumping of mulch, increased dust, and mud runoff from the property. I was told that there were no documents on the first request, and then it was responded to with a note saying that the city now had 10 days instead of three to respond. The entire drive and parking should be paved and sealed as listed for commercial greenhouse. Photos and videos have been provided. Environmental impact from an on-site no on-site provisions for workers as there's no sanitary bathroom facilities in existence and no sanitary sewer or septic tank on site. Crews have worked out of the property all day multiple days in a row. An engineering report should have been completed but no record existed when requested, and a new request from December 9th was responded to with a note saying the city now had 10 days instead of three to respond. Just this morning, I received documents showing the construction plans were not submitted until to engineering, for engineering until November 24th, and he was pouring the drive on December 7th. The permit for engineering is dated December 11th. The city permit has nine conditions to be followed. Multiple pipes have been brought into the greenhouse as documented, and I would like to know where the runoff goes. Housing and building with the state of Kentucky has no plumbing records for this location. These documents have been provided for you. Traffic safety is an issue as this drive is too small and curved for safe entering and exiting of heavy trucks and equipment. And I've given you multiple, multiple pictures and videos showing this. No plant nursery exists because that small piece of property outside of the greenhouse is necessary for the large equipment to turn around. Otherwise, the road curves onto the state highway. I'm sorry. Otherwise, trucks must enter and exit from an illegal entrance at the other end of the property where the road curves onto a state highway. Three drives are very close together, causing a safety hazard and danger. To my knowledge, a traffic plan or report does not exist that I can receive records for. This should have been done before a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued. If one does exist, my first open records request yielded no documents and a second one has not been responded to. Multiple open records requests to state transportation is yielded no documents. I suspect that the fact that this is listed as a residential drive means that the requirements were not met and therefore do not exist. Multiple vehicles have been documented parking on both sides of the state highway. Multiple complaints have been made and are documented. It's a danger to public safety and to my home. The parking situation I'll address in just a moment. A commercial business with operating hours seven days a week for up to six people was approved in an agricultural rural zone, not a business zone, which is outside of the zoning ordinance. This is not part of a farm operation. This property is less than five acres. The business activities on this property are damaging to the purpose of the agricultural rural zone, the neighborhood, and my home in particular. This business is involved in bulk retail at this location, which was first listed on the Certificate of Occupancy application as a warehouse use, and then changed to a general use when I complained. I'm not sure what a general use is for a 6,500 square foot greenhouse. This property was also listed on the certificate of occupancy application as an existing greenhouse, yet building inspection and planning mentioned that the owner needed to fit up the greenhouse. This greenhouse has a huge identity crisis. A lack of proper distance, screening, and the conditions not being met have had a negative impact on me and my property, as well as the neighborhood on a scenic byway on a state highway. This commercial greenhouse is closer than 300 feet to my home and no buffer exists between my home and the greenhouse as required by section 18. My safety and privacy have been compromised due to the conditions not being met and before activities on the property commenced. I feel unsafe walking out my front door unshielded to work crews watching me directly across the street and I provided photos. I can't even let my dog out at 7 30 in the morning without this. It completely goes against the zoning ordinance. No outside displays of mulch or storage should exist in an AR zone but multiple dump trucks and piles of mulch have been left outside of the greenhouse as shown in the photos and videos provided. Wooden storage shelves are outside of the greenhouse. Two trash cans are left outside a door facing old Richmond road often right outside my front door. At one point, a dumpster arrived without a permit right outside my front door. Trash has been on the ground or blown around. Now a propane tank exists on the side of the building, viewable from Old Richmond Road. This appeared after the fire inspection took place. I've been aggrieved as repeated complaints to zoning enforcement have been required. This would not be so if the proper guidance was given and if the conditions of the zoning ordinance were enforced. This should be done before a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued. I see all of this from my home, especially the upstairs bedroom window, which looks out onto this. Large trucks, trailers, and landscaping machinery are often parked facing Old Richmond Road, which is right outside my front door. I should not see a parking lot when I open my door. The lack of a proper development plan with the application as required by the zoning ordinance is impacting me and my property. The requirements have not been met. Where are the documents showing proper access, safety of the traffic flow and the parking areas? I have never been able to get that after multiple, multiple times of asking. The activities on the property, close proximity and poor condition of the property continue to impact my property value and the character of the neighborhood, which is on a scenic byway. This goes against the intent of the zoning ordinance and should have been addressed before a temporary certificate of occupancy was granted. As provided previously and in the record, neighbors have much more invested in their homes than the property owner, and it would be easy for the property owner to sell the lot at the price for which it was purchased or higher. I've been impacted by the improper use of definitions for principal and accessory use, sales on the property, and the use of the terms general warehouse and the fact that it was listed as a warehouse on a temporary certificate of occupancy. It's led to traffic congestion, noise pollution, a lack of aesthetic appeal, protection and preservation of the area and zone. The activities on this property can only be done in an AR zone as a conditional use. So the conditions should be met, maintained, and checked yearly. I've been aggrieved by the conditions not being met. This property was approved as a conditional use as a plant nursery. The principal use has not been commenced, which means a temporary certificate of occupancy should not have been provided. For this reason alone, I've been aggrieved. Work should cease immediately until the proper screening exists, until all requirements are met, until documentation that the processes were indeed followed, until documentation that the public safety is not at risk, until disputes regarding this property and the business on it are resolved, and until the definition and zoning ordinances are met. The Division of Planning and Building Inspection should be made to withdraw, of course they've already given it to them, the temporary certificate of occupancy, and should be found as not acting and enforcing the zoning ordinance for the safety of the public. I would like to throw in, since I'm kind of jumping all over here in an effort to make this work for you all in a timely manner. Article 3.1. No building, structure, or land shall therefore be used or occupied, and no building or structure or part thereof shall thereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered, except in conformity with all the regulations therein specified for the zone in which it's located, unless otherwise specifically permitted in the zoning ordinance. there shall be no more than one principal structure and its accessory structure on any lot, parcel, or land in an agricultural zone or in any residential zone, unless otherwise specifically permitted as a group residential project or planned unit development in this zoning ordinance. A 6,500 square foot structure on a 1.46 acre lot has, by definition of the zoning ordinance, to be the principal use on the lot. An accessory has to be incidental and subordinate to the building on the existing lot, and it's not. The property is not being used solely for agricultural purposes, nor does KRS 100 list a greenhouse as one of the uses for agricultural purposes. No accessory structure can be constructed on a lot before a principal structure. The greenhouse existed, but no nursery plants did when this property was purchased. The greenhouse has to be the principal structure, not the accessory. I mean, I think I'm just going to cut right to the end here. I've been aggrieved in numerous ways as described. This temporary certificate of occupancy should never have been granted and work should cease at the property. The principal use has not been commenced, so the requirements have not been met. Revoke the temporary certificate of occupancy. What will happen when the city isn't involved anymore? I fear more violations of my privacy, safety, public safety issues, a detriment to aesthetic appeal, parking and traffic nightmare, and further decline in my property value, as well as there's a lack of screening. I have a short presentation that I'd like to make, and it's just a few slides, so if I could share my screen. All right, so as you know, the conditional use was approved on September 14 and work began immediately. So this is October 3rd. All right, so next one. Thank you. So, on October 15th, you can see there's a building complaint still in process, but work continued. Only a plan distribution and building plan review was done, as you can see in this document. Thank you. I think you may have heard of me. Dr. Gano, you're muted. Unmute yourself. Dr. Gano, you're muted. You're still muted, Dr. Gano. lower left hand. All right, I got kicked off. Sorry about that. That's all right. All right, so can you see my presentation still? We don't see a screen sharing, no. We lost that. All right. I think after the third video we lost it. I'm totally stuck now. I can't I don't know how to get out of here I can't even see you anymore oh well let's see is this something that you sent us that we can help display yeah I sent it to you that'd be great um thank you and and I think that's why we ask ahead of time for those things to be shared if somebody has trouble. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out how to even get back to you. Can you tell us which particular file you want us to show? Okay. Let me, let me try it again. I was able to escape, so. all right all right so uh i think uh it cut off when i just shown the guys working in the greenhouse else. So October 21st, they were already inside. Plants were already growing. Workers were already inside working. They were working all day every day. As I continued disputes with planning and building inspection about the performance bonds, screening, the building plan asking for those documents repeatedly. Thank you. All right. And later that day. Thank you. All right. So that takes us to by November 3rd, the date which was listed as the date given on the temporary certificate of occupancy. They didn't get one until November 3rd. Accela was showing that between October 15th and November 3rd, all these things have been in process, even though I couldn't get copies of any of those documents. Not an accurate site plan as required. Nothing about traffic. Nothing about all these things that should have been done. This allowed them to keep working all day every day without the BOA requirements being met. There was no screening or paving. By November 16th, paving was still showing us in process, no screening or a performance bond. And you can see that right there on that document. And then November 24th, as I mentioned already, construction documents were listed for engineering review, which was right at Thanksgiving break, November 24th. There was a letter from the engineer to the city dated December 2nd. And the date for the engineering permit, again, was December 11th. and those dates are right there for you. So December 9th, Accela was showing that paving was still in process, but the drive started being done on December 7th. So you can see here this picture, they're putting up at the main turn. At the top of the hill, it's blue, so they have marked the handicap spot and they've got the parking sign posted there. So as you can see, these trucks that have been coming over there, there's no way they're going to make that turn. See, they've been driving down the entire length of that drive and now there's one handicapped parking spot. I have no idea where these things are going to go. So as I mentioned, today Excel is showing that everything's complete and that it got changed from a residential drive to a commercial drive with different square footage. All right. So as you can see, there is no screening for this building. There's another picture of it. It is wide open from the front of my house, as you can see in the other videos, too. And so here's what happened. that's the that's the north end of the property i think we're trucking yeah so i've complained about that entrance numerous times even when i started coming back in whatever year it was, 2015 or something, about them using that entrance. All right, so that's the only way to get the plants now because you've got turn-in, handicapped parking spot, there's no other way to get in there. So what I'm showing you is a little stand of trees there in the front. that is what building inspection told me was the screening being completed um that that's not even what was presented to at the last boa meeting that in no way shape or form screen screens this 6500 square foot structure for anything if a performance bond had been done correctly that would not be an issue and it wouldn't have been an issue in 2006 so what you're seeing here as we've mentioned many times this is a very weird triangle shaped property it's 1.46 acres this is the narrow end of the property so you can see the tree the little sticky trees he planted there that's not shielding diddly squat and then there's the utility line running through there all right so you can see where the where the lines are and then not even all of this is his property because it starts to narrow narrow narrow into like the the corner of a triangle all right so this is the part that's supposed to be the um the plant nursery so there's as i mentioned this is the only place to get in now it's the only place to turn around as you can see that's and i've provided lots of pictures of the mud tracks this has been the only place that they're going in and out because this is all that's left. You can also see there's a pile of mulch out there. You can see the propane tank and you can see the wooden structure that I complained about behind the building, which should not be done in an AR zone. All right. So this is still the 10th. I think that speaks for itself. so since this drive's been paid there's not only always an enormous glare off of the greenhouse but now there's this enormous glare off of this concrete drive because there's nothing to shield it i definitely think i deserve better than that so as i mentioned this drive was finished on this day even though excel is showing there's still no no permit for paving and even though the engineering permit was not done until December 11th. And even though he started this on December 7th, on the 10th, everything had been done. And so the city truck, after he finishes at 11 o'clock, arrived on site before 2 p.m. Now that is what I call service. It's absolutely amazing because I call and I can't get hardly anybody to even answer the phone at the city. And I've documented that. So here are the folks that are inspecting the property. There were five gentlemen at one point all huddled together. Not a single person had a mask on in a pandemic. And then, so I've complained about the traffic. Here's the last one for you. So either they're going to use the side, the illegal entrance, which that is the only way to get those plants in and out of there now. or as I've documented here and as I've documented in several things in the documents that I've provided for you they're going to park on old Richmond Road which is the state highway and here they're parked on both sides including the city track so as you can see this property is so small there is nowhere else to go all right there is not not even another place to park so I will end with this I got an email from Tara Gentry on December 10th saying attached are all the documents we have for 7524 Old Richmond Road and so if these are all the documents something is surely missing even the new application was not included here in these documents. There was nothing about paving. There was nothing about transportation. There was nothing about environmental review that I could find. There was basically three documents. There was the temporary certificate of occupancy. There was the old staff report from September 14th and I think his electrical permit. And those are the only documents, but yet all these things were said to be going on, but they're not documented. So I think you can sense my frustration here. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Gonneau. We appreciate it. Anybody from the board have any questions for Dr. Gonneau? Mr. Martin, are you still with us? Is Mr. Martin He is? Okay Yeah, let's allow Mr. Martin to speak in response I'd also like to bring on Matt Carter with Vision Engineering if Matt's still on I don't know whether he was a call away to another project but you see so am I allowed to have visual video or we're going to promote you in just a moment here. Well they've both been promoted. Okay we've got room on the screen for us. Well generally we only let the appellate share their video. Okay. And as their screens are turned off, that's why you get to see them. But you can hear them. Yeah, Mr. Martin, we can hear you, but we can't see you. We, do you have a, you wanted to be a witness in this case, is that correct? Mr. Martin? Mr. Glover, have they been sworn in? Dr. Gonneau has been sworn in. I want to make sure that we have audio with Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin dropped out for a second. Okay, Doug, if you'll unmute, we can hear you. Yeah, I'm here. Okay. Is Matt Carter on as well? Mr. Carter? Yes, we haven't. we haven't had a verbal okay mr carter is here as well okay so thank you mr chairman uh go ahead mr martin and tell us what you what you want oh i'm sorry have we have we been sworn i have not okay uh would you and mr carter both raise your hand and you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and definitely the truth i do i do thank you Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Doug Martin, and I'm appearing today on behalf of Acton Farm, the owner of 7524 Old Richmond Road. The board recalls it approved a conditional use for this property on September 14th to be used as a plant nursery. All in all, I think this is perhaps one of the most designed, engineered, permitted, and inspected handicapped parking spaces in the history of Lexington. Mr. Ecton has more than satisfied the city's requirements and the city has frankly been great to work with. Obviously, we were pressing very hard to meet this meeting deadline because we knew the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy was being questioned. And so we thought that the best remedy for that was to satisfy all the city's requirements and seek final approval of the permanent certificate of occupancy. Lisa Gonneau is still trying to relitigate the same issues she raised when the Board of Adjustment first issued its conditional use permit. and Lisa Gonneau has also raised these issues in her appeal of that board of adjustment decision to the Fayette Circuit Court so an administrative appeal is really not the appropriate place for challenging the board's grant of a conditional use of this property that's to be done in the appeal to the circuit court this is an administrative appeal of the city's issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy and these are issued as you all know so that an applicant in this case that confirms can start work to satisfy the requirements of its conditional use permit if if Lisa Gno had her way no project would ever get done because you couldn't get a temporary certificate of occupancy in order to meet requirements that are necessary to get a permanent certificate of occupancy. The issue of the temporary certificate of occupancy is part of the normal process for projects of this type. It allows an applicant to undertake work on the site in order to do what's required to obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy. As we started out, Mr. Ecton was trying to accomplish this himself. This is an extremely expensive project for him. He's a landscaper. And the type of challenges that we're seeing is, frankly, fairly financially hard on Mr. Ecton. But I think we realized after a period of time that we needed some expertise. We hired Vision Engineering and Matt Carter to advise us on the the permitting and approval process. And Mr. Carter has been just simply terrific in helping us navigate what is a very complicated system for someone who's not used to operating in that. Lisa Gano's appeal of this temporary certificate of occupancy is now moot. the city has issued a permanent certificate of occupancy we have had numerous communications through letters through emails through telephone calls between myself Matt Carter Mike Ecton and other folks we worked with Joe Bryant who's on here and thank you Mr. Bryant Josh Desarn from engineering, Mr. Newman from engineering, David Johnson from landscaping inspector, and Stephen Parker from traffic engineering. But this has been looked at vigorously. And Mr. Ecton, and with the assistance of Matt Carter, have made, you know, really a great effort to comply and to work with the city and to meet with the city's requirements for this. You know, this project has less than 5,000 square feet of concrete, and it's actually closer to 2,500 square feet. It's somewhere in that ballpark, I think, and didn't really require a full-blown land disturbance permit, but we got one anyway, and so Mr. Ecton has gone above and beyond what the minimum requirements for this project were. I think Dr. Gano is mistaken. She assumes that permits have to be obtained before work can even start. Actually, the permits, and I'll defer to Mr. Bryan or Mr. Carter on this, but you have to meet all the requirements of the issue of the permit. You have to show what's been done. You have to plan it. You have to build it. You have to inspect it. So it all has to be done. And until the permits issued, it's not valid. Until the permit is issued, the city can make you tear it out. And so it's important for the issuance of the permit permit that both the work be planned correctly, plans are approved, but also that the work be completed correctly. And at that point, the permit can be issued and the work is deemed to be valid. You know, let's remember this greenhouse against which Lisa Gonneau has made it her life's mission to tear down existed for six years before she moved across the street. And so if she didn't want to live across from the greenhouse, she shouldn't have moved there. Mr. Ecton has improved this property. We made application to the state of Kentucky Department of Transportation for a highway entrance permit, and they reviewed the plans that were drawn up by Vision Engineering by Matt Carter, and they approved those plans. And the project was constructed based on those plans. And so the state of Kentucky will have jurisdiction over all of Dr. Gonneau's concerns about Old Richmond Road. The entrance to Old Richmond Road is under the purview of the state transportation cabin. You can't drive on wet concrete. And so, yes, there's been some entrances from the other side because once the concrete's poured, you can't drive on it. And so once the construction of that entrance is started, you can't drive on it. And so now we have a state approved entrance leading to the handicapped parking space that this board required as a condition to to Acton Farms application. And it is exactly in the place that was shown on the applicant's plan for the conditional use permit. you know Dr. Gno talks about violations of privacy but I think she sits in her house with binoculars and runs out every time someone comes out because every time I've been there she's run out and with a video camera now I didn't observe this personally but there has been quite a few instances with Mr. Ecton and his employees and I believe with some of the state inspectors where Dr. Gonneau has used profanities against these individuals and given them some inappropriate finger gestures as well. So, you know, I think that, you know, my client is a landscaper. He wants to grow plants in the countryside at a greenhouse that's been there partially abandoned for years. This is going to be the best this greenhouse has ever looked. it's going to be used to grow plants in the countryside in an agricultural zone and my client has done everything possible to comply in a good faith manner and in a timely manner with the board of adjustments requirements Matt Carter do you have anything to add thanks Doug my name is Matt Carter I'm with Vision Engineering and I was brought in this project to assist in the conditions that were set by you guys the board and the things I worked on was obtaining a land disturbance permit which which wasn't necessarily required because if you're under 5,000 square feet of deferred or undisturbed area, one's not required. And as Doug mentioned, we're closer to 2,500 square feet. But we knew there was going to be some contention on this project. So we went ahead, talked with engineering, and they said it'd be a good idea to go ahead and apply, which we did. and we did obtain a land disturbance permit. We also have obtained a paving permit. This plan was reviewed by Traffic Engineering for the one handicapped parking space and approved. We did a landscape plan based on what was stated in the conditions of the Board of Adjustment And that plan was reviewed by Environmental Services and approved. And it's my understanding that it's been planted and the city has signed off on it. Also, as Doug mentioned, we did submit to the state Department of Transportation and obtained a permit to pave the entrance. There was already an entrance there, and the state was okay with using that entrance. They just wanted it paved, and that has been done. But other than that, I've really not done any more on the project, but I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Martin or for Mr. Carter? i don't see any hands raised dr cano you've got five minutes uh if you want to rebut anything that was said i absolutely would like to respond to a lot of that i'm not sure mr martin listened to the whole thing because uh apparently he wasn't listening to the part that things things are not done. As you saw, everything is still visible from my front porch and it is so close to my house. I don't have to run out with binoculars because I can see it from the front porch. I can see everything and this was done to me. All right. So I have made multiple complaints about all the things that have not been correct on this and I've been stalled at every turn. You know, Mr. Martin wanted to say, you know, the comments I've made, I'll tell you what, he showed up over there on Saturday the 12th after I turned in my report to take pictures. And somebody that was with him had the nerve to say to me, to mind my own business while I was in my front yard. So that was totally unprovoked. And I have put up with, you know, people over at the greenhouse laughing at me like they're getting away with something. you know and one of the things I didn't get to respond to last time was the applicant's lawyer suggesting that the neighborhood was just trying to keep people out and on the contrary we testified many times that a single family dwelling would be perfect because all the other lots around it are and personally I found it hypocritical because I'm a single teacher and my home is my largest asset I don't have any other business interests or homes. If I had the ability to do something different, I would certainly not put myself through this time after time. This address, the address originally listed for the applicant's home office, just sold for over a half a million dollars, but he's talking about not having enough money. and the new address for the home office is in a similar neighborhood. So I guess he didn't want this in his neighborhood either, even though he owns another 10 acres at another location. So I don't really buy that argument at all. And, you know, I think there's still some things, a lot of questions. So yeah, Kentucky Transportation might have said, okay, one parking spot, here's your handicapped parking spot, I still say there is no screening. That's a requirement. And where the heck are all these trucks going? Because I've documented not just on the day they paved, but multiple times and over the years have complained about the use of this illegal entrance. I even said that when this application came up in September, where are other trucks going? You can see from all of the photos and videos that I have supplied that there are huge trucks and trailers coming onto this property that have actually gotten stuck in the mud going through the illegal entrance because they're so heavy. There is no way else to get these plants in and out other than these big tractor trailers, these big trailers and trucks. Multiple people show up there. there is nowhere for them to park so they're either parking in what's the plant nursery using the greenhouse or they're using the illegal entrance or they're parking on old richmond road i think that remains a huge huge safety concern okay uh thank you dr gano uh doug we don't have any provisions for a sir rebuttal so i don't I don't need you to respond to anything Dr. Gonneau said. If you'd mute yourself now, Dr. Gonneau, I think we've been fairly generous in giving everybody a chance to speak and present testimony about this issue and certainly documents. We've had lots of documents from Dr. Gonneau. Does anybody have any further questions of the applicant or Mr. Martin or Mr. Carter? before we try to resolve this appeal. Let me say this about this. Having learned just recently that the certificate of occupancy was issued, and issued apparently today, it appears to me, in my opinion as the chair of the Board of Adjustments, that this application or this appeal is now moved. I got some support for that from the Department of Law, and I think that's probably correct. But I wanted to let the people who had been patiently waiting today to go ahead and present their evidence and make whatever record they chose to make. But I believe that the issuance of the certificate of occupancy makes the appeal complaining about the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy a moot point. And therefore, I think it's my opinion that this appeal now has no procedural reason to exist. so that's my that's my statement but the members of the board may have another opinion so are you ready to take a vote on this appeal and if so I'll entertain a motion Chair, I'm still confused. I felt there was no motion to be had. Well, we need some resolution of this appeal, and I'm the chair, and I choose not to make a motion or ruling myself without hearing from the members of the board. So let me hear from the members of the board what you think we should do with this appeal. I would vote to disprove it, but there's no temporary anyway. I guess we could do it procedurally. I know. What do you think, Ms. Jones? Let's hear from Ms. Jones. I'm not fully convinced that I have the procedure correct, but I'd like some confirmation with this. Well, this circumstance is obviously something that y'all don't deal with all the time. I think that because you heard it, you need to take some kind of action, but that action can probably be one of two things. You can take the action that it's disapproved because the permanent one's been issued and that if there's you know issues about the permanent one that are separate and aside from the appeal that's already pending in circuit court for the conditional use that would also have to be appealed as an administrative hearing to you all but i will say again as miss uh as autumn told you in the beginning you know you can only consider the procedural aspects of that because the conditional use that granted this on the property is currently on appeal and in the jurisdiction of the court. The other alternative that you all can do is just to determine that, you know, based on the issuance of the permanent certificate of occupancy of what you heard today, that you find this that, you know, appeal to be moot and that you all agree on that and that can be your course if you choose to do that. So I think you can go either two ways, but whatever you do, any action, you're not going to really have any action at this point to take on the temporary one because it's been overridden by the permit at this point. So would it be fair to, would one of our options be to declare the appeal to be moot because of the issues of the certificate of documents? I think so. Okay. If you choose to do that. I mean, you also have the parameters based on what you've heard, you know, to make a decision based on the record of debit. I just want you to fully understand that, you know, there's not anything you can do about the issuance of the temporary one at this point because it's been overwritten by the permanent. So we can move to take no action. I'm not sure we can move to take no action. I think we can declare the temporary conditional certificate of occupancy that it no longer exists because of the reasons stated. But I think we have to take some action. I don't think you can take no action. That's not really. Can it be a disapproval because the temporary CO no longer exists? It could be a disapproval because the temporary would no longer exist. And therefore it makes this appeal move. If you would prefer that, it could also just be that it's moved because the permanent one's been issued. And that now is controlling over this. And, you know, on the merits of the conditional use permit, that's when the jurisdiction of the court at this point. And I think all these motions are to the same end. So I'm not sure that we're arguing over anything except form right now. And I think the form probably doesn't matter as long as you take some action to resolve the appeal. So I don't think I don't think you can disapprove. I don't think you can disapprove something that really no longer exists. Okay. Well, the appeal still exists. We need to make an action related to the appeal. Yeah, the appeal still exists. So the appeal, what you're disapproving is not the temporary certificate of occupancy, it's the appeal of the issuance of the certificate, temporary certificate. And the grounds would be the fact either that the issue is mooted or that since the temporary doesn't exist, it's mooted. So, yes, Ms. Whitman. Okay, I move to disapprove the request of the third-party appeal of PLN DOA 2065, Lisa Gnoll, that contests the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy by the Division of Building Inspection in an Agricultural Zone on property located at 75% 24 Richmond Road because of the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy which has been issued. Making the temporary issuance move. Making the temporary issue of occupancy mute, yes. Thank you Ms. Whitman, is there a second? Mr. Needham seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. All those opposed? Mr. Clark, what say you? I'm opposed. I don't like the wording of the motion, but I understand it. Thank you. Okay. Fair enough. The motion got to require four votes and one opposed. So the motion carries. The appeal is disapproved. Thank you very much, everybody. And that concludes the docket for today's hearing of the Board of Adjustment. on December 14th. As far as board items are concerned, this is the last meeting of the year. By the bylaws, we select a chair, vice chair, and secretary, and any other officers we feel are needed at the first meeting of the board of adjustment next year, which will be on January 11th. 11th. Do we have audience items? It's not listed on the agenda, but typically the board is allowed for public comments about items, not on the agenda. Okay. Ms. Clark, are you there? Ms. Clark has been allowed to speak. Would you? Ms. Clark, you unmute yourself and we'll hear from you. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, I wanted to apologize for inadvertently causing the board to take a case out of order. I didn't in any way intend to represent that I was on another side of a matter. I simply want to I regret the misunderstanding and I don't know which disturbs me more that you would think that of me or that Mr. Glover would present it to the board but certainly I apologize it was not intentional thank you okay thank you Ms. Clark okay that concludes the board items are there any staff items that the staff has for the board? Fair enough. Our next meeting is January 11th, and if there's no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.