Music Two, one, two. Thank you. is uh lex tv ready for me go right ahead sir perfect and then uh so who do i have seen look here i got joan harry chad and myself is uh raquel and there's raquel okay perfect day Sorry, I'm going to switch this to – I'm not used to being on this end of the – move that to gallery. Perfect. Usually I'm at the office, and today I've been booted out because of COVID spikes, so I'm at home. So I will go ahead, and this is the agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting for February 8, 2021. I'm going to make the following announcement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 as signed by the governor on March 30, 2020 and Attorney General Opinion 20-05 in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. The Zoom information has been posted to the website, and I think with that, we are ready to begin. So first off, welcome, everyone. Unfortunately, or fortunately, our new chair, Tommy Glover, was not able to make it today. And then our new vice chair, Chad Needham, was also not able to make it today. So I have been pulled out of retirement, and I will be chairing this meeting today to the chagrin of most and to the elation of a few, primarily probably my other board members who don't have to chair today. So with that being said, first we're going to go through is our approval of the minutes. If everyone recalls, we did not approve the December minutes because they weren't ready last month. So we'll be approving both the December and January minutes today. Those were circulated by the staff. Any questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion for approval. So moved by Mr. Clark. Is that? I second. And I've got Ms. Carter second. And any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please raise your hand if you vote in favor. I show that as unanimous, if we can mark it on the schedule. Let me ask staff real quick. Do we just want to – how do we want to go about getting my signature? Because normally I'm in the room with you guys. We can arrange for a time for you to stop by and sign. Okay. Is that something we can just – it doesn't have to be done like today or tomorrow can just be done sometime in a reasonable time period? Correct. Okay, perfect. Yeah, we'll just get together then. Awesome. Okay, so that takes care of that. The next item is I'm going to sound the agenda to make sure everyone is here and their cases to be heard and put them kind of in the order to be heard. And so the first case is a variance appeal, and that's PLNBOA 20-71 Megan Riley and Harry Tolson Richard regarding 118 Vista Street. Is the applicant present today? Yes. Okay, perfect. And was there anyone who wants to speak in opposition to that matter today? Mr. Chair, I believe they wish to request a postponement. Oh, I'm sorry. I did skip that part, didn't I? let's see here yes that's the second part of sound the agenda i should put that first part okay so with that being said anyone here want to postpone and i see uh mr bryson is up on behalf of the uh applicants uh good afternoon mr bryson good afternoon thank you to uh all the impaneled members of the board um we are seeking a continuance until the uh next available hearing date, whether that be next month or two months from now. Quite frankly, I have just become involved in this matter, and we need time to prepare a viable presentation as well as do some research on my end. Understood. Well, which one do you guys prefer, March or April? I'm flexible. We've got a March 8th. I'd love March 8th if that is available. I don't want to. Yeah, that's available. Okay, great. Yeah. So the applicants ask for a postponement till March 8th. Any discussion or is everyone in favor of doing so? If so, we'll hear a motion. Somebody want to move? I move that we approve the postponement of PLNBOA 20-71 to March 8th. Thank you. Do I have a second? Ms. Whitman has raised her hand to second. So I have a first and a second on the motion. Any discussion? Hearing none, then please raise your hand if you are in favor. I show the vote as being unanimous. So Raquel Carter was the first and Ms. Whitman was the second, in case you didn't hear that. So, Mr. Bryson, we'll see you then on March 8th at 1.30 p.m., and we will likely be doing it by teleconference again. Fantastic. Thank you all very much. May I be excused for the remainder of the meeting? Yes, sir. Have a good day. You too. Thank you. Okay. All right. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals at this time? We do. Mr. Simpson has his hand raised. Okay, Mr. Simpson, we could bring you up. And I saw Wayne was on. And Ms. Gosnell also. Yes. And then was Wayne trying to get Missy on? I think that they're both on now. Okay. I'll go ahead and promote them. All right. While we're waiting, I just wanted to disclose to everyone, because just so everyone knows, I mean, most people, I know everyone on the board knows, but just so the public knows, I am a licensed attorney in Lexington. And being such, I occasionally consult with my other attorneys on various real estate-related issues, and this is one of those cases, but I do not think my discussions were germane to the issue at hand today. I did about, I can't recall, it seems to me it was a year, maybe two years ago. Time flies when you're in the COVID. And I did speak with Wayne and Missy regarding some of the underlying land use and real estate issues with this particular piece of property. I personally don't think it rises to the point of me needing to recuse myself underneath the KRS Chapter 100. but I wanted to disclose that to everyone just so everyone knew that I had, like I said, it's a small bar in Fayette County, and so I do occasionally talk real estate with my other members of the bar. So with that being said, primarily this is for the parties, just in case anyone does want to bring that up and discuss it further, but I don't see it as coming forth as a reason to recuse myself for this application. So with that being said, Mr. Simpson, you would like a postponement? Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the information. I certainly don't have a problem with you presiding as chairperson of today's Board of Adjustment meeting. For the benefit of the board, I represent Hugh and Kim Bloomfield, who own property on West 3rd Street. We've taken an administrative appeal of a decision made by Jim Duncan of the planning staff back in June regarding his sign off of a document that's called a retracement plan, somewhat unusual kind of instrument, if you will, not brought up very much in the course of development or planning and zoning matters. But nevertheless, one was filed back in June. My clients found out about it for the first time in December of last year, contacted me because the document, this retracement plat that was filed, which is really boiled to its essence, a representation of a survey that the property owner had, the Kissling Estate, which has property adjoining property of my client's Mr. and Ms. Bloomfield. This document or tracement plan represents a survey of their property and they recorded it in the Fayette County. Submitted it to Planning First of course for their review and signature and letting Jim Duncan signed off on it based upon the representation contained in the document that was presented to him by the Kisling estate, their surveyor, and whoever filed it. I think it may have been their engineer. In any event, that document that shows represents that the Kisling estate actually has a title based upon the meets and ban or based upon the retracement plat, I should say, based upon the retracement plat that was approved. And their survey, they own a portion of property that has been owned by my clients and the previous owners of the property dating back more than 60 or 70 years. So that caused my clients some concerns. And one of the requirements, certainly as the chairman knows full well, if you want of challenge some kind of decision made by the government, you have to first exhaust your administrative remedies, which in this case would mean that an appeal of Mr. Duncan's decision would have to come before the Board of Adjustment. Out of an abundance of caution, I took an appeal of that decision to this board. Now, there's a couple of related matters, which are really at the threshold of the case because the Kisling estate by virtue of this survey is claiming ownership of property that my clients own and we're prepared to contest that in court we have engaged a another surveyor to survey the property he hasn't completed his survey as yet probably be finished sometime later on this week if that's what I was informed Friday or first of next week they've had delays based on the COVID, of course. There's only certain times that you can get into the county clerk's office to research deeds and that sort of thing. So we don't have the survey as yet. And even if the survey comes out, we get it. There's still other claims that can be made, legal claims that can be made, which really have to be decided by a court in terms of who owns the property before we even get to a ruling on the Board of Adjustment on this retracement flat. So I have asked, I asked in my appeal or pointed out in my appeal that I would be asking for an indefinite postponement of this appeal until such time as the litigation, which will be instituted on who owns this property. We believe we own it, the Bloomfields. We're asking for an indefinite postponement until the court litigation regarding ownership of this property is finally adjudicated by whatever highest court ultimately gets this case. Now, you also need to know that independent of our appeal, this same property is currently before the Kentucky Supreme Court on another issue regarding a plat that the Planning Commission initially approved in 1979, for which an appeal was taken of the Planning Commission's decision. and then it took four years, but the circuit court ultimately determined that the planning commission made an erroneous decision and ordered that that decision be undone. Now, for reasons which for which will ever remain a mystery, that directive from the Fayette Circuit Court never got implemented by the Planning Commission for 35 years. It was this issue about compliance with a court order was brought back to the Planning Commission's attention a couple of years ago, in which they, after hearing the nature of the legal controversy, concluded that they needed to comply with that 1983 court order and then revoked the plat that the Planning Commission had approved in 1979. The Kissling estate took an appeal of that decision and also filed what's called a declaratory judgment, which is a legal step to litigate other rights relative to this same property. Now, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission, and then an appeal was taken to the Kentucky Court of Appeals The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed with the Say It Circuit Court's decision that the Planning Commission acted appropriately by revoking the plat. The Kisling estate then filed a petition for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court. Mr. Simpson, can I stop you right there? This is becoming the longest postponement request. I've missed you, Bruce. I've missed you. I'm almost done. The only reason I'm addressing it is because there's two other lawyers here that are going to speak to this that we're apt to get involved in some avenues that really aren't germane to the post-owned appeal. Oh, no, I know there's a lot of pieces, but yes, please carry on if you only have a minute or so to wrap up. And so suffice it to say, members of the board, there are a number of legal issues beyond this board's legal jurisdiction to determine, which need to be determined before it rules on my appeal and my judgment. And that's why rather than get into a situation where you decide the appeal that I filed and thereby create additional litigation, I'm simply requesting that there be an indefinite postponement of my appeal in order to avoid further litigation, which I would believe would be unnecessary litigation. There's no prejudice to indefinitely postponing this case because nothing's going to change relative to the postponement. The courts will ultimately determine the central issues involved with regard to this property. So for those reasons, I am asking for an indefinite postponement. Okay, but we're not asking for another 35 years? Not for me. I certainly hope it doesn't go for another 35 years. Well, all right, Mr. Simpsons, I got that. I will ask staff because to be honest with you, we don't like indefinite postponements. Even the Planning Commission doesn't like delivering those. So we will go with that. But let me ask you this, because the way I look at it is there's a lot of going on in this case. A lot of it I find completely not germane to the issue at hand. The way I see the issue at hand is, number one, do we have jurisdiction to hear this case is number one, and I will get into it, but I agree the zoning ordinance isn't really clear on what you do in a situation, specifically when the delegee for the Planning Commission has made a decision on how you appeal that decision. And then number two is, assuming we do have jurisdiction, where all the boxes, since this is a ministerial, where all the boxes that Mr. Duncan was to check off, where those all checked off for this to be issued. Well, we are not here, this is for the audience and for everyone, is who owns this property, what the boundary line is for this property, whether or not someone can build a house on this property, what the development is, or what the final use of this property. None of that is germane to our quest. I know Mr. Simpson gave us a good summary. I'm sure the other attorneys will give us good summaries of their spin on the historic pleadings and history of this property. and we don't mind taking some time to let you tell that but the ultimate at the end of the day none of that really matters um because i think that i think it's going to boil down to do we have jurisdiction if we do have jurisdiction what exactly uh mr duncan did um in complying with the ordinance and the land use subdivision regulations um so with that being said uh Next, who wants to speak next? Is there an order, Bruce, on who's on which side? I know Linda Gosnell had also filed an appeal. Wayne Collier. Yes, we received that today. And Missy Palmer will be speaking for the Kisling Estate. So I don't know if they want to add anything or not. I guess I'll go to, we'll go to Linda first since she's aligned with your position. Good afternoon. Hello, thank you very much. I have no objection to waiting on this matter indefinitely or a month or six months. My appeal is a slightly different cast on this matter. I'm not concerned with who owns that particular strip of property, although I agree with Bruce's client's position on it. What I am concerned about is that the staff, some way or another, approved a subdivision plat showing lots that have been previously adjudicated by two courts not to exist. And there may be some confusion in that. So that is the thrust of my appeal. I don't want the staff to go behind the actions of the courts and the Planning Commission and do something different merely because Mr. Collier's client hired another surveyor and filed something saying there were additional watts. So we've already had a litigation that ended in 1983 that said this property cannot be subdivided into watts. and so my thrust of my appeal relates to that issue this particular document purports to add lots so i'm i'm fine with and agree completely with bruce on waiting not only till the kentucky supreme court decides if it's going to do anything with what the planning commission ruled but also with regard to bruce's new action that he is going to file and by the way getting the additional survey and I asked for a document earlier today that I did not receive that the staff apparently relied upon. Okay thank you Linda. I guess I'll bring up the lady and gentleman from Kinkade Skills. Hey Wayne you're on mute. how's that that's better much better all right missy is here but she couldn't link up maybe we don't have enough broadband so if you hear her say something she's she's in the background um i agree that the principal issue the first hurdle to be crossed has to do with jurisdiction but there there's been an unnecessary cloud placed on the resolution of that issue for this reason yes there is litigation that has wound its way through the courts as presently before the kentucky supreme court on a motion for discretionary review that much i think we can all agree with what is just incorrect is the statement that the property that is the subject of that action has anything to do with the retraced plot tract in this case, which is 446 West 3rd. The plat in the action, to be clear, was one that was recorded in plat cabinet B slide 669. And it's kind of a figure eight shaped two pieces of property. We say, they say it's one, but nevertheless that's the shape. If you look, if you have the retracement plat with you, you can see that piece of property, but it was not retraced. This is an entirely separate other tract of property that traces its title independently. At least as far back as 1900, maybe 1888, we submitted all these documents to the commission. There's an independent chain because we had to show that the boundary pre-existed the subdivision and zoning ordinance, which we did. And so that's all in the file. The record is very clear. And if you look at the retracement, it has nothing to do with that action. Trying to hold this up or somehow determine something that the Planning Commission did or didn't do with respect to that, that action will never have any bearing on it, ever. And if that's the basis for anybody's decision, that will be an error, period. No way, no how. Now, with respect to jurisdiction, the staff has got a report. I've looked at it, and we filed something today that basically without recounting everything that's there, they're right. You don't have jurisdiction because Platts are particularly the province of the Planning Commission itself, whether it's by the entire commission or by the director in the case of retracements. There's an agency that exists there that allows the director to sign. So that being said, there's no point in continuing anything, because if you don't have any jurisdiction, you don't have jurisdiction to continue it either. and what's more everyone's on the other side said of course no prejudice well that's because they don't own this piece of property my client does and as I think Ms. Gosnell-Subbittle said she's well aware that they're trying making efforts to try to make this track saleable and there are people who are interested in it and so to put it on indefinite hold exacts a penalty that the law doesn't allow. And this is a relatively simple question. The remedy, as the staff correctly pointed out, was to have appealed to the Fayette Circuit Court, not this board. No disrespect to the board, but as you know, this is not a court of general jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is completely circumscribed by statute and ordinance, and that's it. And I did submit with ours. There's an attorney general opinion. I'm just going to give you the site. I'm not. Well, wait, wait one second. Autumn, was that distributed to us? Yes. I'm told. I mean, I filed it electronically today. Yes, it's in the Google Drive. Okay. All right. It came in after I looked at the Google Drive then. All right. Sorry about that. But in any event, it's Attorney General Opinion 82-390. And it involved kind of a similar situation, not exactly like there wasn't a retracement, et cetera, but it's a similar situation. And what they said, the Attorney General there said, KRS 100.277, that's the operative statute, specifically requires that all subdivisions land shall be approved by the Planning Commission. We'd all agree on that. Thus, the matter of subdivision approval is strictly under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and no other city or county official. So the staff got it right. That's just something that we furnished that, I guess, to make them to support that. but and and you know there there have been statements the record in this case the board has and these others if we're going to have to to import this entire file to prove that this action has no bearing and everything else if that's that would be improper it's going to cost a fortune for you to read it i i wouldn't wish that on anyone if plat if the plat and plat cabinet A, which is black and white, and plat cabinet B slide 669 is different from this plat, which is a plat cabinet S slide 62, then all that that you heard about is meaningless. And you can look at the retracement and see that that's exactly true. So this matter is ripe for decision. If you don't have jurisdiction, really, the only thing you can do is make a legal decision. Do you have jurisdiction or not? And if you don't, it's dismissed. That's it. There's nothing to be done. There's no facts to be taken. There's no testimony to be heard. No continuances to be granted or anything else. So that's our position. And your record that you have bears that out. Thank you, Mr. Caller. I want to go to let Autumn weigh in real fast. I'm assuming the staff's position is going to be no, we don't want indefinite postponement. And then I'll let Ms. Jones weigh in also, the legal departments. But Autumn, if there's anything else to add, now is your opportunity. We would object to postponement really of any length of time because we do not believe that this is within the board's review. The director of the Division of Planning acting as the the Planning Commission secretary signed off on the retracement plat, and that is subject to the regulations of the subdivision regulations. The board can only act on third-party appeals related to the zoning ordinance, and those two documents are separate, so this is not within the board's scope. Thank you, Autumn. Ms. Jones, is there anything else to add before we decide on the narrow issue of postponement? um i don't i don't think so not really i mean there there's some finer points but i don't think they go to the issue of postponement i think that this board needs to decide whether or not you're going to postpone it and if you're not then it'll go on the docket as a to be heard item okay and then not to cut not to leave you out of the mix but i will probably ask you to weigh in if we do have this heard a little while. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the arguments that Wayne has raised. Yes, sir. I would submit to you that anytime there's two opposing attorneys that disagree on what a given decision-making body ought to do, that by itself begs a question on whether there's clear-cut, unambiguous for certain jurisdictions, but begging, certainly calling for a postponement of at least one month. And in this case, what's happened here is they've submitted a survey, which we believe is clearly erroneous, should not have been the basis for the staff's decision, and would allow the staff to correct their decision based upon more accurate information, or the court's adjudication that regardless of the survey, we own the property. What we don't want to get into is a situation where Mr. Collier says that you failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Therefore, your challenge to this retracement plat is untimely. it may be that we could work out an agreement since we're going to be filing a civil suit here probably in the next couple of weeks want to see what our survey says we haven't had the opportunity to to get it done to present it today at this hearing Mr. Collier indicated that he submitted some kind of document to the to the staff this morning I've not seen a copy of that I checked my email it's not been sent to me having a decision by this board on any matter other than a post opponent of at least a month today would certainly be denying my clients due process. You certainly can't be filing something at the last minute, not copy opposing counsel, not giving them time to review and respond, and certainly not giving us a sufficient time under COVID to have our survey complete so that the record, we have the opportunity to present a record to this body, regardless of whatever it chooses to do in terms of the ultimate decision. So I think the evidence is compelling for a postponement. And to not postpone, what you're going to do is wind up getting a lawsuit on a number of different fronts involving that decision that can be easily avoided by postponing this case at least one month to allow us to more fully respond to the arguments raised by Mr. Collier and to the staff report, which I received today, so that this board can make a fully informed decision and that all the parties would have had ample opportunity and notice to prepare to address arguments raised before this decision-making body. I think the argument for at least a one-month postponement is compelling and almost mandatory considering the constitutional due process rights of the parties that have expressed an interest in this appeal. Okay, quickly. Can I have that please for me because I haven't seen any of this material Wayne said he set file today. Okay, if I may. you know the bloomfields filed this appeal not my client and if they've got something that they think had merit that's that's up to them to prove but it they knocked on the door and this is not a door they can open this body has to determine if it has jurisdiction to hear any matter concerning a retracement that was signed off by the planning commission and the law is that no it doesn't the proper remedy, just as the staff pointed out, is an appeal directly from the Planning Commission's action to the Fayette Circuit Court, not this body. And so all the other arguments about everything that might be in the record or anything else, that presupposes that you're going to exercise jurisdiction because no evidence can be taken, no testimony can be taken, and certainly no legal arguments could be made what i'm hearing is this is a real estate matter from them at its core and they've somehow appealed to this body well they either can or they can't threshold question it and that must be decided and i'm sorry but if if you're trying to sell your property you can't tell me that postponing this because they can't get their act together somehow doesn't prejudice my client. Well, before we, I can feel a tit for tat coming on between my two colleagues here. So I'm gonna go ahead and pause it real quick. Bruce, I will let you have an opportunity to respond. Autumn, Bruce has made an allegation that he received the staff report this morning. That seems, was that, when did that go out? The staff report went out last Monday. We did revise the staff report. You all on the board also received a revised. So it's a revised one that went up this morning. The copy that Mr. Simpson received this morning as well. All right. For the record, added two sentences. Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. I mean, the crux of the staff's position has been known, and I believe, Mr. Simpson, you've known more or less what the staff was going to decide, presumably well before today. Exactly. So exactly. And I think we're entitled to at least make a record, Mr. Chairman, before the board makes a decision. We at least ought to be given the opportunity to have our survey introduced and also to be able to respond to the document that was tendered today, which we have not seen by opposing counsel. And I would caution the board not to make a decision today simply because postponing it for one month does not harm Mr. Collier's client. Mr. Collier's client has filed a lawsuit in this case, which has clouded their own title to their own property. That's keeping it from being sold to anybody, regardless of what this board does. He's entirely in control of that lawsuit. We're getting into arguments that I'm trying not to get into yet. Real quick, Wayne, did you send this material to Bruce? No. Would you email that to him so he has an argument? I will certainly do it. I'll send one to Ms. Gosnell as well. Please do. If you could get that done. If I could. Only because Mr. Simpson is right. He's not had an opportunity to look at your materials. I am going to wrap this up in a second because this is, like I said, not what I expected right out of the gate on this particular case. So what I want to do is I want to go ahead and let's mute Bruce, Linda, and Wayne, because I want the board to talk at this point. And I want to open it up to our discussion on whether we want to do a postponement or whether we want to do a hearing, and in which case the hearing could be the jurisdiction issue alone or both issues, or we could do a jurisdiction issue and they continue the other issue if we decide we can hear this case, if we want to postpone to have more facts put into the record. So there's a lot to open up. I will open it up now to the floor, the board members to go ahead and for us to hash this out and get this decided so we can kind of have a plan for what today is. So Ms. Whitman, you were moving your head. So you've now volunteered to talk. Yes. From what I've heard, two things, actually. We did receive some more information earlier today that I believe Bruce said he had not seen and maybe some of the others too. But anyway, my big question is, do we have jurisdiction over this matter? And from what I hear, I do not think that we do have jurisdiction, but I would like for the law department to weigh in some more on that issue. Well, and I think if we're going to weigh in on that, I'd like to go ahead and just have this case initially heard. Because if we determine we don't have jurisdiction, then everything else is moot. and we can always if we get into it we can always at some point during the hearing move to continue it to next month if we decide we don't want to make a determination today so so I think Ms. Whitmer are you leaning towards no postponement and let's at least get the hearing started. I'm leaning towards that we may not have jurisdiction to even hear it. I know that it's on our agenda. Correct. Well, I think we need to have Ms. Jones, if we determine we don't have jurisdiction, I know we get into these issues. More or less, there's no action for us to take, presumably in that situation, if there is no jurisdiction. That's correct. Correct. But I think it would I would prefer, at least if we're going to go that route, Ms. Whitman, for us to allow Bruce to argue why we do have jurisdiction in this matter before we make a determination that we don't think we do. only because while Ms. Jones and staff has said we don't have jurisdiction, I think that the citizen applicant has a right to say, no, we do think you have jurisdiction before we dismiss it out of hand. I think that's all we've handled these cases in the past. What do you think, Joe? I disagree. Okay. Well, that's fine, too. uh anyone else want to well i think i'm in uh in line with you that we have to determine if we have jurisdiction so if we have to hear the conversation or the arguments to make the determination for jurisdiction because if we don't have it then there's no point in postponing it till next month we're just done with it right yeah uh miss jones i can't recall what would be legal department's position on it whether or not we even have a hearing on whether there's jurisdiction or whether a majority of the board says no there's not or how we go about that uh position? Well, I mean, I think that before you can take action on any further part of the case, you're going to have to determine if this board is the proper forum and if you have jurisdiction to hear it. So if you, you know, if you're inclined to postpone so you can get more information on the jurisdictional questions, I guess you could do that. You know, the circumstance is a little bit unusual, but if you want to hear it on the issue of whether or not you have jurisdiction and then determine if you were to decide that you did, whether or not you're going to postpone it at the request of Mr. Simpson, you could also do that. But I think the jurisdictional question is kind of the first issue. So you're really talking about a postponement of two different things. You know, Mr. Simpson's asking you to postpone the appeal that he has filed in light of those other matters that are pending. You all would, if you believe the arguments that he just made to you and that the other parties are making to you about a dispute as to jurisdiction, but that they don't have all the information about that question, you could also postpone that to hear the jurisdictional question next month. So it's two different things, I guess, if that makes it any clearer, that are being asked. In other words, Mr. Simpson filed this appeal for his client, and then he came in saying, I'd like to postpone that appeal, which includes, you know, what the facts and circumstances and the merits of his appeal are. But as we've gotten into this question about does this board have jurisdiction, then you're hearing also on a on a different kind of appeal request or a postponement request, people saying some people saying some of the parties saying that I need more time to respond to this. I don't have all this information ahead of time. So it's not just really all the same postponement requests, but I do think jurisdiction needs to be determined first. And how would we determine that by, do we make a vote or. Well, I mean, I think if. When we get to that point. Well, I mean, if I guess you can make a decision right now, if you want to postpone on the question of jurisdiction. If you think that the parties or the, if it's your belief that there is not enough information based on what is in the zoning ordinance and what your all's purview is, if you think there's not enough information for you to make that decision right now, you can postpone for purposes of getting more information and being ready to take on the question of jurisdiction first next month. If you are interested in trying to decide the question of jurisdiction today, then I think you'd have to put it on for your hearing docket, hear the information about jurisdiction, make a decision, and then depending on the outcome of that decision, it would determine what happens next with this case. Yep. Mr. Carter. And so it seemed like to me, as a member of the board, I don't have enough information that I can say now that I have an understanding of where jurisdiction comes from and how we would make that decision. I don't think we have enough information to make that decision today. I would be very concerned. I don't think we have jurisdiction either. but at the same time i don't have i don't have the message to to support that at all i do spend enough time i think reading the staff's report and and trying to digest that so i can make up my mind about something at least after i've heard the presentations i haven't heard that yet and it's well and i think that would be something that could be heard this afternoon i let mr simpson and Wayne and Tracy Jones discuss that issue. And then we could then, we could then at that point, we could decide that issue or we could continue that issue if you still feel that there's not enough information to make that determination. I think it sounds like it needs to be heard, Brandon. Well, let's see here. Yeah, it looks like we're kind of all over the place. Who at least wants the initial hearing to be held today? Raise your hand. For the postponement? Okay. For us to kick this down to hear it in an hour when everyone else is done and tired of listening to this and we get the other cases out of the way, then we can discuss jurisdiction this afternoon. versus who wants to postpone it? What are you asking for? To determine jurisdiction or to hear the... Well, right now what I'm asking for is who wants to postpone it until next month? The whole kit and caboodle. Who wants to wait until next month to have this thing heard? Raise your hand so I have an idea. I do. All right, Mr. Clark. if you don't think if you don't think there's jurisdiction for this miss whitman i'm going to insist that we have an argument or hearing on jurisdiction this afternoon unless we postpone it okay okay i can go either way i mean i've got four of you uh i'm leaning towards having this thing heard but if three of you want to postpone till next month i'm comfortable with that it'll save me an hour, two hours of my life until next month. And then Mr. Glover will be chairing. So my question is, all right, you want to hear, Ms. Whitman wants to hear, I want to hear, okay, we're going to have this thing heard today then. And we'll decide at that point, we'll work on the jurisdiction issue at that point. And we'll decide whether we want to continue or how we want to handle that. But I would like to, at this point, allow the other applicants who have now been waiting for 50 minutes on the withdrawal docket. And I'm not saying we can't postpone once we have this case heard, if you guys change your minds at that point. I'm confused, Chair, of what you're saying we will hear. Are we going to hear arguments for jurisdiction? Are we going to hear the case? I think we're going to hear the jurisdiction argument first. I think we have to have that. We have to decide that we have jurisdiction before we hear the case. Okay. I'm okay with that. Okay. And in the meantime, while we're postponed, Wayne, please, if you have not already, send Linda and Bruce that material by email so they have that and they can be looking at your materials. Okay. So I'm now going to take this case down. This is going to be, this one's going to be a rodeo. Excuse me. Can we have like a specific time to come back? No, ma'am. No. Okay. You get to stick around with everybody else. That's just how it works. All right. Yeah. Okay. So if you could demote everyone and if we could – all right. Now we're back to the balance, and that is the friendly properties in Crow Island. uh autumn and video either one of those requested a postponement those were the only two postponements that were requested that i'm aware of okay um and friendly properties was here they checked in earlier okay and then so did crow island yes all right in that case let's uh bring up friendly properties case then And this is for the audience. Hey, good afternoon. This is on page two of our agenda, item number two, PLNBOA 20-1, Friendly Properties, LLC, regarding 143 Shawnee Place. I apologize for you having to wait. That postponement request unfortunately got a little bit more involved than I had anticipated or expected. I promise it's shorter. Okay. So if you could please introduce yourself for the record. Yeah, my name is Brent Bechtel, owner of Friendly Properties, but that's just the name and title of which that home is underneath. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and swear you in. If you could raise your right hand. And you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Thank you. the staff has recommended approval and that's approval subject to two conditions have you seen those conditions i did and are you are you agreeable to abide by those i did would you please read them again to me just to confirm uh yeah the first one is construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan and all necessary permits and or approval shall be obtained from the divisions of building inspection and historic preservation prior to construction and use? Yes, sir. Historic preservation is already approved. I'm working with the other, I forgot the name, building permits, just to make sure we get the water here. All right, so to confirm for the record, you do agree to abide by those? Yes, sir. In their entirety. At this point, does anyone from staff or any of the board members have any questions? All right, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. Move for approval of PLN VOA 21-1 Friendly Properties LLC's request for variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 18 inches to 14 inches. Is that inches or feet? for a detached accessory structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area in historic district overlay H12 family residential zones on property located at 143 Shiny Place based on staff's recommendations and subject to the two listed conditions. Second. Thank you. So I've got a first from Ms. Carter, a second from Mr. Clark. Any discussion on that motion? Then all those in favor, please raise their hand. I show the vote being unanimous. Okay, friend. Yes, sir. You've been approved. Good luck. Awesome. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. Now, will that show my application, or how will I know? It's the first time I've done this. Yeah, that's a problem. So Autumn, will you explain the process now? Sure. You'll just go through the typical permitting process. If building inspection needs anything from us, just have them reach out to me. Sounds good. They won't get anything from us, but we should be able to keep moving forward with your permit process. So do they get a letter or anything from you saying you've been approved? No. Okay. So if you talk to building inspections and they have a question about it, refer them to Autumn and she'll confirm you've been approved. Perfect. I'll follow up with that. May I recuse myself of this meeting? Yes, sir. Have a good afternoon. You too. All right. Thanks. Okay. So that brings up our next case, which is number three on page two, PLNBOA 21-2 Crow Island, Inc. And that is for 243 North Mill Street. If we could bring up the applicant and or his workers. Mr. Taylor, how are you? I'm very well. How are you all today? I'm doing great. Let me get you sworn in for the record. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. And Mr. Taylor, if you could tell us, are you the owner of Crow Island Inc.? No, sir. I'm the representative. I'm with Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture and Design. We're representing the owners of Crow Island at 243 North Mill Street. Thank you, sir. And you've been – have they given you authority to speak on their behalf today? Yes, sir. They have. and to bind them today? Yes, sir. Perfect. The staff has recommended approval. The approval is based upon two conditions, actually the same conditions from the last approval, it looks like. And have you and your clients had an opportunity to look at those? We have, and we agree with them. Thank you. Perfect. That's what I wanted to hear. In that instance, I'm going to open it up to the board. Are there any questions for the staff or for Mr. Taylor at this stop? Okay, hearing none. Is there anyone who wants to make a motion at this stop? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNBOA 20-2 Crow Allen Inc. Request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.71 in order to construct an addition to a single family dwelling within the defined infill and redevelopment area and historic district overlay H1, two family residential R2 zones on property located at 243 North Mill Street based on the staff recommendation and subject to the two conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. So Mr. Clark made a motion and Ms. Whitman has made a second on that motion. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, please raise your hand if you're in favor of approval. I show that vote being unanimous. All right, Mr. Taylor, application has been approved. Good luck with you and your client's project. Thank you all very much, if I may be excused. Yes, you may. Have a great day, everyone. Thanks. Thanks. Be well. All right, now we're back to the Bloomfield case. Before we start that, anyone on the board want to use the restroom? or get a drink or anything before we start. Please. Yes, Ms. Carter. Okay, let's take a 10-minute recess and let everyone get their facilities and their cushy chair put together. So we'll probably be here for a little while for this one. So we'll see you guys back in 10 minutes. We are adjourned. I mean, in recess. Thank you. Go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Welcome back, everybody. We are back for the Board of Adjustment meeting for February 8th. We took a short recess to get everyone ready for our next hearing. And at this point, do we want to go ahead and promote but keep muted the appellate and the third party appellate and then also the appellate? Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. So I need to swear everybody in who wants to be speaking today. So if you could, for the three parties, if you could raise your hand. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Okay, so what I'd like to do is since we're going to discuss initially the jurisdictional issue, and then at that point, once that discussion is over, we will make a determination on whether or not we feel we have the jurisdiction to hear this case we can do at that point one of two things we can decide that we don't have enough information to make a determination on the jurisdiction in which case we can continue till next month we can decide to we don't have jurisdiction in which case the balance of the appeal is moot or we can decide we do have jurisdiction in which case we will hear the balance of the case which we can either hear today or we could continue or postpone until next month depending on how Ms. Jones wants us to handle that from a procedural nature. However what I'd like to do next is since this is really a legal issue and not necessarily a planning staff issue I'd like Ms. Jones to begin with the legal department's position for, and also if you could give us a little bit of background on what Mr. Duncan did and why he did it for the members of the board who aren't necessarily familiar with retracement plants. I'm glad to do that. I, let me say first, I just, I'd like to start a little bit with what a retracement plot is because that is not something that this board regularly sees or frankly that even the planning commission sees on a regular basis but it is a little bit unusual the a retracement plot is simply a plot that retraces parcels or lots specifically as they're reflected in the deed description for deeds to the property And when somebody asks to do a retracement plot, what that allows for is we have to go back and make sure that there are deeds that have been in place and that were in place with their descriptions before our zoning regulations went into place that are still the descriptions for those properties. So that's what happened here. um and i've gone back and i've looked at both the the retracement plat um and um also some of of the other information but what what occurred is that um the property on third street that's the the subject of all the other litigation that you've heard about which which i don't really think we need to get back into right now for this decision um they came and asked to do a retracement plot what we told them was they had to be able to establish that the property descriptions for their tract or their their parcel that they own needed to be in existence they needed to bring them back before the date of our subdivision regulations and show that that was the description of the property um i i and i might need some help from the staff here, but I think the date on that is sometime in the 60s when the subdivision regulations went into place. And so that's what happened here. I think you have this in your Google Drive or in the information that might have been filed, but that retracement plat, it has a note on it that specifically says this is not to create a developable, buildable lot. I can't remember the word exactly, but it basically says all other necessary permits and things would have to be obtained in order for that lot to be developable. So it's a reflection on drawing on a paper of what the description in the deed looks like. So that's the document we're talking about here. Now, there are certain, and it's also known in the subregs in the zoning ordinance as what we call a minor plat. There are certain minor plats and other duties and things that the secretary of the planning commission is tasked with by the planning commission. and they take a vote on this in January of every year when they elect their officers, that they designate to the secretary. In other words, if XYZ is met and there's no interpretation, no application that's strictly applied to just you show me this and I'll sign off on it as the secretary of the planning commission, then those things don't have to go to the Planning Commission. And this minor plat is one of those. So if you look at the plat, the retracement plat that's the subject of this particular case, Mr. Duncan did sign it, but he did sign it as the Secretary of the Planning Commission. So in January, when they elected their new officers for the Planning Commission, they also took a vote and designated Mr. Duncan, who's the Director of Planning, to be the Secretary of the Planning Commission and to execute these tasks. it's a number of different things, but one of which includes him signing off on their behalf on some minor plats. So the question that the staff is raising that you've seen in your report about whether or not there's jurisdiction is, and this is how we evaluated it, was Mr. Duncan when he signed off on this retracement plat, which is a minor plat, was he acting on behalf of the Planning Commission as he's been designated to do and for duties to which have been delegated to him as their secretary? And we believed that he was. um so it's it's our opinion after a review of this that by doing that it's really an action of the planning commission not an action of him as the director of planning or the division of planning and so therefore it should be any appeal from that should be addressed as an appeal from a Planning Commission action, not an appeal from the director of a division. For example, something you all are familiar with of appeals that regularly come to you, and why this probably seems odd to you, is that, you know, sometimes there's, the division of planning is now tasked with zoning enforcement. And so if somebody brings or makes a complaint about a zoning violation, you know, this business is operating in this residential zone, hypothetically, and we send them a notice of a violation, well, Mr. Duncan will sign that as the director of planning as zoning enforcement. If the party that's sent to doesn't agree and they think that that violation is in error or was issued to them inappropriately, they will appeal to you. If the Division of Building Inspection issues a permit for something and a party believes that permit was issued in error, you often will get a third party appeal that says, in fact, you just saw one of those last month. you know the director building inspection issued this building permit and it was an error those appeals come to you what what we while we came down where we did on this is because those type of appeals are different than actions that are regulated and normally handled through the planning commission and we try to keep your all's functions as separate as possible because you each have, you know, specific functions that you engage in under the ordinance and under the statute, and we don't want to get you all crossways with each other acting on things that you're not really tasked with doing. So that is the crux of why the staff report says that there isn't any jurisdiction. So to summarize real quickly, the Board of Adjustment does not oversee actions of the Planning Commission. That's correct. Those are oversaw by the circuit court or the city council depending on what issue it happens to be. Sometimes they make recommendations versus approvals. well the plan yes but those aren't really appeals when the whenever the planning commission acts on a zone change they are making recommendations to the urban county council because the legislative body it has to enact his own yes but but the point being is the board of adjustment never reviews an approval of the planning commission that is correct okay and in the staff's position is Jim Duncan signed and approved the retracement plan as a more or less an officer of the planning commission. That is correct. It's an approval of the planning commission and therefore we don't have jurisdiction to hear an approval made by the planning commission. That's correct. Okay. look there's one exception to that and i only do this because i'm these lawyers are are very knowledgeable and i have respect for all of them so i just want to the word never might be a little extreme there and the reason why is because and this just came to my mind when you said that if if the planning commission is hearing a zone change and part of that zone change is a request for a variance or a conditional use permit, if that's heard at the same time as the zone change, the planning commission will hear that, which is what you normally hear, but only in the context of what it is in conjunction with the zone change. And if the planning commission were to grant a conditional use permit in that circumstance, and then later on there's some problem with the conditional use permit, then it would come back to you guys. Gotcha. No, you're right. But in this instance, it's the legal department's position that we don't have jurisdiction to hear this matter. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. I thought that was a very good presentation. Anyone on the board have any questions for Ms. Jones? What we'll probably do is I'm going to go after Ms. Jones has an opportunity. I'll let Bruce rebut her argument, and then we'll let Linda fall in, and then we'll let Wayne also discuss. But once again, the only issue I'm interested in discussing at this point is whether or not we can review the actions taken by Jim Duncan in approving the retracement plan. All the other stuff I don't want to hear about right now. This is the only one we want to focus on. So any questions for Ms. Jones or for Autumn, for that matter, before I take over from the staff and open it up for Mr. Simpson? Oh, Ms. Whitman, you're on mute. There you go. I do have one question. Where is this now? Is this still in the circuit court? Whereas there's two, well, if I understand correctly, there is a matter of litigation that involves all of the attorneys that you see here, with the exception of your chairman. Um, and it is, it is currently pending in front of the Supreme Court on a motion of Kentucky on a motion for discretionary review. It has been appealed to the circuit court and they upheld. And they, that, that is a different plat. Let me also be clear that that litigation, that plat was a subdivision plat that divided this property into lots and included access easement. other things so that it could be subdivided and have different lots sold off. That's the 79 plat that you heard discussed earlier, and there is multiple disputes over that between the parties, and so it has been to circuit court, it has been to the court of appeals, and now there's a motion pending. We are all waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on whether or not they're going to take it. Now, Mr. Simpson mentioned something earlier about a quiet title action between his clients here, the Bloomfields and somebody, I'm not sure that's been filed yet, but he could address that. That would be a separate court action from the other one. Okay, thank you. I was not sure where that was, but you clarified. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay, Bruce, please proceed. all right thank you mr chairperson and members of the board let me first say that it was not my intention to come here and create a lot of argumentative discussion about procedural matters and jurisdiction or cause anyone to have anyone on the board to have a headache the lawyers are used to having headaches about this so i don't need to apologize to them but as as you know by now this property uh the kissling property i'll call it um has been a subject of of litigation in another matter and then my clients in december um become aware that um there's another flat that's uh been recorded on this property that claims that um they own part of my client's property. And certainly my clients became concerned about that. So here's the situation that presents itself from a legal standpoint once they received notice that this plat had been filed. And please understand this, on a retracement plat or a minor plat that Tracy mentioned in her presentation just a moment ago. Those kinds of matters are decided by the staff. The staff has been given the authority pursuant to the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to sign off on those kinds of documents. And that's what took place here. However, there's no notice given to any adjacent property owner that that a retracement plaid or a minor plaid has been filed no one gets notified that that's coming before the staff for a decision and so the the folks that i represent the next door neighbors the bloomfields were never given noticed, no one called him, no one sent him a letter and said, we're going to file a retracement plat that indicates that we now own part of your property. They were never informed about that. They never had the opportunity to meet with Jim Duncan before he made his decision to say, this survey is wrong. You shouldn't sign it. We want the opportunity to present our own survey to show you it's wrong. They never had that opportunity for Mr. Duncan to be presented with other evidence. The only evidence that Mr. Duncan was presented with was the evidence that was introduced by the Kisling folks. We never had the opportunity to challenge it, to rebut it, to question it in any way, shape, or form. So what happens when you first find out that Mr. Duncan, as the director of planning, has signed off on a minor plat, a retracement plat like this, six months earlier. Are you just out of luck, even though you weren't notified of the decision? In most instances involving planning and zoning matters, a party who's been aggrieved by a decision has 30 days to take an appeal to circuit court. In this instance, Mr. Duncan's decision was made in June of 2020. But the Bloomfields, the people that I represent, didn't know anything about that decision until a Kisling attorney sent it to them, informing them that they didn't own the land they thought they owned, and that a plan had been filed in June, six months earlier, that reflected that the Kislings now own this property that my clients and the previous owners of this property had owned for many, many years. So the point is this. Fairness is fairness. We never had the opportunity to present an argument to Jim Duncan that this was an erroneous survey or that there were other legal issues of ownership that should preclude him from signing this minor retracement plan. And so what happens? Well, there's been 30 days certainly had passed after Jim signed it in June. That expired sometime in July. Typically, you don't have any opportunity after 30 days to challenge anything. But in the in Karis chapter 100, which is the comprehensive set of rules and laws that govern planning and zoning matters, including the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. The General Assembly enacted KRS 100.261, and I included this statute, Tory reference, all of it, in my appeal. And what this statute does is give the opportunity for some person like the Bloomfields who were never notified of Jim Duncan's decision or what went into his decision at the time he made it back in June, it gives them the opportunity to take an appeal to the Board of Adjustment to have them look at the basis of that decision. Was it based upon accurate information. Are there errors in that information or some other kinds of deficiency that should cause that decision to be revoked? And so pursuant to KRS 100.261, we filed the appeal. Let me read to you. It's a fairly short statute, and it's also abundantly clear. KRS 100.261 states as follows. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment may be taken by any person or entity claiming to be injuriously affected or aggrieved by, and this is the critical part, by an official action, order, requirement, interpretation, grant, refusal, or decision of any zoning enforcement officer. Well, such appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the appellant, which would be in this case, the Bloomfields, shall be taken within 30 days after the appellant or his agent, which would be me, and I found out it shortly after the Bloomfields had gotten a letter from the Kisling attorneys, such an appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the appellant or his agent receives notice of the action of the official, which would be Jim Duncan, by filing with said officer and with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof and giving notice of such an appeal to any and all parties of record. So what this statute does, it talks about any decision of the zoning enforcement officer. Now, there's no question that Jim Duncan is the chief zoning enforcement officer because the division of planning is the is the entity within the Irving County government that has the authority to enforce the zoning ordinances and the zoning subdivision regulations. They're not limited to just the ordinances. Anything that falls within the enforcement of governing planning and zoning law, they have the authority to make an interpretation about it or make a decision about doing something, taking some action based upon the enabling legislation which gives them the authority to do it, such as sign off on minor plats or retracement plats. So this statute is kind of like a savings statute of due process, if you will, that will allow folks like the Bloomfields, who never got notified before Jim Duncan made his decision about what was being requested of him, particularly since there was pending litigation in the Supreme Court of Kentucky on this same property involving another plaque. that this statute then allows folks like the Bloomfield, situated like the Bloomfields, who didn't get noticed, nobody told them that this was going to be reviewed or determined or decided, the opportunity, once they did find out about it being recorded, and to see someone has recorded a plat for the first time in December on their property, saying that they don't own this property any longer. What this statute does, in my judgment, it allows this board to review the basis of Mr. Duncan's decision. Now, anytime there's a decision made, I'm not faulting Mr. Duncan because he didn't do research to check the survey of the Kisling estate because the Planning Commission staff, headed up by Mr. Duncan, only gets one side of it. They get the side of one property owner. They don't get the opportunity for someone to review it or rebuttal when it comes to these minor plats or retracement plats. So this statute now allows us to say, wait a minute, either this survey is wrong or there's some other deficiency as a matter of law that says you should not sign this plat, You should not have signed this plat. And had we been given the opportunity to address it before you signed off on it, you would have decided differently. This statute allows for that to happen. And that's the basis of this board's jurisdiction. The other feature of all this is this. Anytime there is a decision made by an employee of this government, when it concerns the development of real estate or approval of minor plats or retracement plats or any other kind of zoning interpretation with which a citizen may choose to disagree, they have a requirement under the controlling case law to exhaust their administrative remedies, which is to say that if you want to challenge the decision of Jim Duncan in court, you have to go to the Board of Adjustments first and have them make a determination on whether or not he was correct. And then you can take an appeal from the Board of Adjustments decision to circuit court. The dilemma for any attorney in this particular kind of situation is this. If I didn't take an administrative appeal to the Board of Adjustment on Mr. Duncan's decision, then I know Wayne Collier, as good a lawyer as he is, had we then gone to circuit court. One of the responses or defenses he would have raised was Mr. Simpson didn't exhaust his administrative remedies by taking an appeal pursuant to KRS-100-261 to the Board of Adjustment and giving them the opportunity to make a decision on the appeal. And then the circuit court would be in a position to say, looking at the body of controlling law, administrative law, governing decisions like this, Mr. Collier is right. Mr. Simpson didn't exhaust his administrative remedies, And I'm going to have to dismiss this case because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court will say, I don't have jurisdiction to hear this case because Mr. Simpson didn't exhaust his administrative remedies first by going to the Board of Adjustment. So I say all of this because there's a lot of different avenues, a lot of different I's that need to be dotted and T's that need to be crossed to protect a citizen in a situation like this when they never got notice of this retracement plant being filed, which purports to take part of their property before Mr. Duncan signed off on it. So based upon KRS 100 261 and the facts that I have recited in my appeal and now we believe this board clearly has jurisdiction to decide our appeal. I'll be happy to respond to any questions. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Simpson. Does anyone from the board have any questions or comments to Mr. Simpson at this time? Ms. Whitman? Yes. My question is, I noticed in the information that we have, it says that your clients are getting a new survey. Have they obtained that survey? Ms. Whitman, no. They started the survey and finally got a surveyor to do it. he is about i talked with him friday he's about a week away from completing it because of covid as i mentioned earlier he's had a difficult time uh being able to to get out and get it done the other thing that a surveyor has to do in a situation like this is to review the records in the county clerk's office which is closed to the public subject to only a limited amount of time that the county clerk will let somebody come into their office to do a limited amount of research under a specified period of time. So that has delayed our survey from being done, but I've been informed that it should be finished, if not by the end of this week, by the first of next week. Did your clients have a survey done when they purchased the property? You know, I don't know if they did or not. The purpose of this survey would be to examine the accuracy of the survey that was approved by Mr. Duncan to determine whether or not the legal descriptions actually do reflect their claim that they own now part of my client's property, at least in terms of the legal description that's in the deeds. I'm sorry. Mr. Simpson, so is it your assessment that KRS 100-261 applies to Mr. Duncan, regardless of if his capacity is, or he was acting in his capacity as planning director, or is his capacity as secretary for the planning commission? You think it's applicable in both instances? I only can go to the language of the statute itself, where it talks about any zoning enforcement officer that interprets something, makes a decision about something. And Jim Duncan is the chief zoning enforcement officer of the Lexington Federal and County Government. And he made a decision based upon what how he viewed the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations that gave him the authority to sign off on this plan. So, yes, I'm saying that this statute covers all the roles that he acted pursuant to in signing off on this plat based upon the language that's in the governing Lexington-Fayt-Arbony County Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations and that's overlaid by state statute, this particular statute. Joan, you're free to fire away whenever you want. Okay, this is a question for Tracy. Mr. Simpson keeps saying that signing off on the plaque. Is that correct terminology for what Mr. Duncan did? I mean, it was a certified plaque by the surveyor. Did Mr. Duncan, did he sign off on it or did he just sign it as accepting the PLAT, notification that the PLAT had been filed? Tracy, you're on mute. We don't have you talk enough. You forgot to unmute yourself. No, it's too much on Zoom, I think. But if you look at the plat, Mr. Duncan signed as the secretary of the Planning Commission. And there's also a signature line on there for the person that did the survey that did the plat. You know, the only thing I can tell you in response to what Mr. Simpson said about the statute is it does refer to the, any to the zoning enforcement officer and there are any number of things that the planning commission acts on that don't give notice to people that might be affected by it for example development plans that come after a zone change or if there's already zoning in place that come to develop the property, those don't regularly send notice to surrounding neighbors or people in the area as a zone change is required to do. Now, there are instances where specific interested parties know about it from a zone change or from some other reason and ask to be notified if a development plan or a preliminary or final development plan gets filed or something like that, but those regularly go through the planning commission, have a complete review by the staff, have a technical review, have a subcommittee review by committee of the planning commission, and you probably know this having sat on there, you have planning commission review, and then once all of the conditions are met on that development plan, Mr. Duncan signs off on those as the secretary of the planning commission. So I would liken this to that situation, which you all do not get review of those if someone believes he signs off on a development plan in error. Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Simpson? Okay, well, I'm going to let Linda speak. So So, Bruce, we'll come back to you and let you respond to anything that Wayne may say after he's finished with his. But, Linda, do you have anything to add right now? Well, I'm wondering why the zoning ordinance wouldn't give the board the authority, since it says that a person who's aggrieved by an official action of the Division of Planning can appeal. And it would seem that both myself and the Bloomfields are in that position. I absolutely agree with Bruce on the interpretation of the statute. Because to do otherwise, and I have to take exception to what Ms. Jones said about this being a different plat than the one that's currently in litigation. There is only one address, 444 West 3rd. That is the only one in existence. So by filing this plat, Mr. Duncan has allowed additional lots with varying addresses of 447 West 2nd and 446 West 3rd to be approved in some sort of governmental action. And so it is the same property tracked one of Mary Jane Gallagher's original deed that she got in 1964 or whatever the date was. It does not match up with what they're claiming. That includes actually the house and the L-shaped property behind my property line. So I'm not sure why it's continuing to be argued that there is no change. if they have changed the plat by adding lots, they have done more than just some sort of minor thing. And I believe a person who's aggrieved by that ought to be able to appeal. And I'm taking it from Ms. Jones's argument that there's no appeal except to the circuit court from, you know, as Mr. Simpson has pointed out, this was all done behind the backs of the neighborhood association and the owners, even though there was litigation involved in this. So we had no notification and no ability to appeal to anybody. That's it. Thank you, ma'am. Wayne, you're up. Here we go. One thing I'd like to stress in this, and it's you didn't want to hear about I know you didn't want to hear about the other properties, but you have. And I want to return to what you said. The board said originally. You want to review the facts that have to do with jurisdiction. Those are jurisdiction. If we were in court, those would be called jurisdictional facts. They relate just to whether this board has the right to hear it, not what, if it does have the right to hear, what it has to consider to reach a decision. And they've been freely intermingled here by the appellants. Well, what are those jurisdictional facts? You've got a plat. It's signed by the secretary, who is essentially under the ordinance, the agent for the entire planning commission. the statutes are clear as to who does that we've the staff's recommendation on that just it's right they've they've cited all the ordinances and regs and all I've done is add an attorney general's opinion that just confirms that so those are the only facts you really need to know but since there have been so many questions about this being the same property if it were this body still couldn't hear it because it's a plat. But be that as it may, let's examine that so we get this red herring out of the way in everybody's mind. I understand how you've heard so much. The staff has the file. They've reviewed it in great depth, greater depth than I have, and they're aware. And we're all under oath today. So I want to make sure we're getting it right. Autumn, do you have this plat? This is plat cabinet B, slide 669. That ought to be among the records that are in the Planning Commission's file when it approved the retracement plat. And it shows, and I realize Zoom is just not the way to do this. Share with us a second. We'll be pulling it up and sharing our screen. Just one second. Perfect, perfect. If you can do that, go right ahead. Beats what I'm trying to do. Ours is not colored, but we do have that. I'll try to explain it. I don't have a little laser pointer. You will see that in 1979, there were a couple of tracts that the Kisling Estate's predecessor in title owned one of which was later sold and it's there are three lots you can see them there that extend all the way from West 2nd Street in a straight line back and then there's a little jag to the next tract which is 444 West 3rd Street she's moving it she's yeah so that's if you can keep that in mind you'll see now where she had see the dot where she has that behind that tract and to the southeast of the other tract is the tract we're talking about today it's a rectangular tract that is directly behind 444 she's outlining it there it is it has nothing this these are the part the two parcels you see that are next to it those are the ones that are in the litigation that's the case that's before the supreme court but what uh autumn just outlined is the subject of the retracement plan which is has nothing to do with those tracks except it's adjacent and it happens to be owned by the same party that owns the other property. And didn't own until 88. This property was platted in 79. So Autumn, could you show them the retracement plat and then show that other track, the one we're really talking about today? We'll pull that one up as well. I've got great confidence if you had that up, you'll get this one. She's pulling. Okay. Is there a way to enlarge that because it's less distinct? Perfect. As you can see, Autumn, if you would... Autumn, could you move it looking at it up or yeah down so we can see where the encroachment is also that encroachment note at the bottom oh well it doesn't make it there but I could explain that if you want Mr. Gross I think she had it better it was easier to see some of the boundaries because what I'd like to do first before we get to the encroachment is establish okay that's fine yeah that's fine that this retraced plat has nothing to do with those two tracks you saw on the other plat. Autumn, could you return it to however you had configured it beforehand, please? There you go. You see where 444 West 3rd Street is, and then above it is the other track. And she's going up there. Those two tracks are the ones that are in the litigation. The retrace plat, the whole purpose of a retrace plat is that it hasn't been platted before because its description is ancient. And so that's what that portion of your subdivision ordinance applies to is it allows tracts that are essentially grandfathered in to assume a description, a modern description that allows it to be transferred today. and that's what they've done here. So the applicant, in this case my client, supplied all these documents, the whole historic title and everything else that had to do with this previously unplatted tract, which is not the subject of the plaid in Plaid Cabinet B 669 as you just saw, and they did that and they retraced it. That's it. Now you see kind of an oval-shaped area and then there's uh it says garage and then 436 below that there's a dotted line the bloom fields have kind of an l-shaped property boundary or something and the back part of their property comes up and abuts this retraced plat along that common boundary where the garage is and so our client just sent him a note said hey let's we have this can we talk about this whatever are you interested in buying it and this and this has followed but what you can see also from this one it is a fact and it is a fact that this board can see today this retrace plat has nothing to do with the property that's in the action so every argument you've heard today about that is smoke and mirrors it has nothing to do with it now autumn if you could move the retrace plat down so we can go up a little further and see what's on the west to kind of to the northeast of it. Well, I'm trying to see Ms. Gosnell's track, which is up. It's her track. No, her track's right there where you have your cursor. If everybody can see that, I hope you can. As you can see, that tract is not adjacent to the retrace plat at all. Not adjacent. Autumn, I could see your cursor when you had it there before. There you go. There it goes. That's it. So that rectangle that fronts on West 3rd Street to the right, that's where Ms. Gosnell lives. That's her property. The tract behind it is the tract that's in litigation and the tract number 444, which is not adjacent to Ms. Gosnell's property. So those are the facts. anything anybody wants to say about the action i'm sure i don't know if it's good coffee table or a party discussion but it certainly has no place in this hearing because those facts are not relevant in any way shape or form to the to the question that's before this panel so it's different property and as far as standing generally to come in and say i want to appeal you've got to have some right in it. She's not even adjacent. The Bloomfields at least are saying, hey, we've got a boundary dispute or we think we've got a boundary dispute with these people, which is something you decide in circuit court, you know, title and all that. Ms. Gosnell doesn't have any interest except that she's a neighbor. I don't know how many feet away because I can't read the distance there. There's no standing. So she's intervened. She's made arguments. but she didn't have a right to do it. She's here. Now, when you get past that, now you come back to the real jurisdictional facts. What I heard the Bloomfields argue, consider what it was. I mean, when you hear it for the first time, it took me a second to sit here and say what does that amount to uh mr simps explained that the bloomfields are concerned that maybe the procedures that are observed by the planning commission uh are not such that the bloomfields feel that they are fair to them is that a matter that the board of adjustment can pass on can they determine whether the planning commission uh the procedures that the urban County Council has enacted for them are correct? No. That's for the Urban County Council. So that question certainly, they may have a question about that, but this isn't the body that gets to pass on whether another body of urban county government, whether their procedures are proper, whether they're constitutional, whether notice is given. And certainly, as was said earlier, I believe, I don't know what the date was, but the Bloomfields did receive notice of these very arguments, probably when anybody else did. Was that Tuesday? I don't know when, Autumn, I don't know when the notice went out with the staff recommendation on it. but because I don't recall seeing it, but nevertheless, they've known about it. If they had wanted to brief this or present something to you or whatever they could have, they don't need more time for that. Certainly, we haven't had any more time to deal with it, and it's our plan that they want to delay. So all these questions about boundaries and everything else, they distract from the jurisdictional. nobody wants to seem to want to talk about that except the Kisling estate and the jurisdiction's the thing if they want to file suit and circuit court or you know courts are always open rule two says so or maybe that's rule one I haven't looked at it in a while so that's it but just because they wish to have a remedy doesn't mean that the board of adjustment is catch-all body that gets to hear everything just because they need a remedy. They have a remedy, circuit court, and that's it. And we're not here to advise them how to proceed. It's just, this just isn't the place. It doesn't have jurisdiction. And the jurisdictional facts are simple and undisputed. And I realized maybe this is, you've heard so much about it, you now have interest in it or something. And well, that might be dangerous to start thinking like lawyers if you're interested in that sort of thing. But it's not a matter for you as the board of adjustment to be interested in. And to delay this, if somebody wants to continue to say that the properties are the same as the one in litigation, everybody's under oath, my client said suffer no damages? Yeah, my client will. They'll have to pay us to come back and brief it. And when you finally find out it's different property that was never planted before, who's going to pay my client's legal bills? Will these two appellants do it? I'm sure they don't want to. But that's the consequence. That's not only the delays, we've got people that are interested in this property. So if there's some right these people have somewhere else, then that it's their prerogative to go pursue it there, but not here. And this should stop so that whatever time and expense and effort that not only the participants, but you as a board are spending ceases. And if someone doesn't like that decision, and then they can always appeal it if they want to to the Fayette Circuit Court until they run out of appeals. But that's the decision. So I appreciate your patience on things like this, but these are legal arguments. All these other facts about boundaries and everything else, that's, again, a red herring. Those are matters decided in a quiet title action, typically. Thank you, Wayne. Bruce, do you have a rebuttal before we go into our discussions? I do, Mr. Chairperson. Wayne responded to a lot of issues, but not to the seminal issue, which is before the board. I will agree with him on one point, though. the underlying facts of my appeal are not in dispute. They are not in dispute. And I find it interesting that Wayne is concerned about his client's attorney's fees because had his client been a reasonably good neighbor, a courteous neighbor, back at the time they filed it or before they filed their retracement plat, I think a good neighbor would say, hey, we did a survey and it looks like your property, even though it hasn't been unchanged for 60 years or longer, that fence has been up and this has been, nothing's changed about it. We think that you're on our property. I'm going to give you a notice just to let you know we're going to file this with the planning staff. Take a look at it. If you have any concerns or objections, you may want to share those with Jim Duncan before he makes a decision. Now, they didn't do that. They could have done it, but they didn't do it. They knew there was no notice requirement to an adjoining property owner. Their intent to go and file a document in the records of the Fayette County clerk's office that represented they actually own part of their neighbor's property. They didn't give anybody notice about it. They filed it secretly in many ways and then provided certain information, limited as it was, without the benefit of the adjoining property owner having the courtesy of doing their own survey to see if their survey was in fact accurate and having Jim Duncan giving him the opportunity to review both surveys before he made the decision. They controlled all of that. They knew they didn't have to give notice, that they could get by without giving notice, and they did so and then told their neighbor six months later, hey, we have a plat recorded that shows us owning part of your property. so what's to be done what is the statutory um option for a property owner who was never provided with the information that that they should have been provided if neighbors being good neighbors the opportunity to challenge the survey well the only the only option that's afforded under the law is when Jim Duncan made that decision on the minor flat retracement flat which he has the authority to do is to take an appeal to this board and at the risk of being redundant it simply states in very clear unmistakable language that doesn't require any interpretation appeals to the board may be taken by any person or entity claiming to be injuriously affected or aggrieved by an official action, order, requirement, interpretation, grant, refusal, or decision of any zoning enforcement officer. Such an appeal shall be taken within 30 days to the Board of Adjustment. Well, we've taken the appeal to the Board of Adjustment because we deemed that when Jim decided the case, when he signed this plat, he did so on the basis of inadequate information and that it was limited and that the party who stands risk of losing part of their property without ever having been hurt on it in terms of this plat that's now clouded my client's title to their property with which the boundaries of which in terms of the fencing and everything else that would that defines it in terms of if you were to go in their backyard and look at it it has not changed in over 60 years that you can have your next door neighbor go and file a document and claim that property is that that part of your property is now lost and a clout on your title if you want to sell your property you're talking about attorney fees that this neighbor has going to create for their neighbor because they didn't extend them the courtesy of saying i'm going to record a plat that's claiming part of your property you want to have the opportunity to review it and maybe get another surveyor to question it it's going to cost my clients a ton of money to clear up this mess when maybe just maybe if they've given the opportunity back when they filed this retracement plan to look at it, maybe they would have agreed. Or maybe they would have said, we believe we claim this by adverse possession. Or maybe there's something else. They didn't do any of that. They didn't do nothing. And that's why this statute is there to protect the public when a governmental decision maker makes a decision like Jim Duncan did, but it's based upon not all of the information or perhaps erroneous information. Once we were notified about this plan, we had 30 days to file an appeal and to bring this to the board's attention as allowed by this statute for you to make a determination. You have plain jurisdiction. This statute cannot speak any more plainly. And more importantly, the policy that underpins the statute, you know, why was it adopted? Why would you say that the general public has 30 days to take an appeal of a decision that they may not find out about a year and a half later? Why would they put a statute like that in play? Because they knew, the General Assembly knew, there were situations like this where a neighbor may not be neighborly. They may not give a courtesy call to their neighbor saying that we're going to claim part of your land. and then they find a plat that claims to do that very thing, but it was based upon wrong information, it gives the public, it protects the public to go back to that government official through the appeal to the board or have the board go back and say, you know, yeah, Jim, you didn't have all the information, and had you, you probably made a different decision, and Jim would probably agree, assuming there was information to support a contrary decision, which we don't know as we sit here today. So in terms of the jurisdiction, the policy that underpins this statute and the language of the statute itself gives this board clear jurisdiction to decide this appeal. Thank you, sir. any questions for Bruce or Linda or Wayne at this point anything you want to add Miss Jones before I close the public comment portion the only thing I would say is it sounds to me like what we're really talking about here is a quiet title action And that's not something the Planning Commission on their own or through Jim Duncan could decide anyway. um you know if it you know the only the only types of plats that that mr duncan as the secretary is allowed to act on um without full input you know without that he's designated to act on by the planning commission are those that set forth you know very clear parameters which are bring in the old deeds, bring in, you know, if there's going to be a dispute about interpreting that deed or there's a dispute about how a surveyor interprets the terms of the deed, that's not an action that the Planning Commissioner Jim Duncan is going to be deciding as the Secretary of that commission anyway. So we'd still stand by our original position on this. Okay, thank you, Ms. Jones. At this point, let's go ahead and put the parties on mute, mute, I mean, not mute, mute, so that the board can weigh in without interruptions. so at this point I will I just want to make a few comments you know I think that I don't believe there's a case law but it's generally accepted with amongst real estate practitioners that you know a filing of a plat does not transfer a title you know that's what deeds are for so I'm not you know as concerned about someone saying that a plat was filed and I think I own two feet or three feet of what was within that plat. I also don't think that in this instance that Jim Duncan, who is probably never in my six or seven years on this board, made this many references in one hearing to Jim who probably never wishes he signed that plat now with this many references he's getting today. But I don't think I don't think he was a zoning enforcement officer in this instance. I think he was acting as an officer of the Planning Commission directly, and I don't think we have the authority to review most of the Planning Commission's decisions. and I you know and also if we could if we could pull up on that plat real fast the retracement plat I'm going to point out a couple things for the record and primarily I want to focus on the note yeah the important note not the other notes the important note there we go you know that while this retracement plat was recorded um and the staff has deemed it to be a lot um for platting purposes um no permit shall be issued for the property depicted or created by the plat until such time as an amended plat is recorded creating appropriate public and private utility and access easements so even if it is a legal plat it doesn't make it a buildable plat. I'm not sure who has interest in it. You know, at this point, it could be a park. You could sit in it. I don't think you could build a house in it. I don't think there's any sewer or other access or other easements or other things you would need to make it a plat that could have a house on it. And so in this in downtown Lexington, a retracement plat is not uncommon. And so, you know, just throwing that out there, I don't think it has anything to do with what we're doing today, but I do want to put on the record that no one's supposed to be building on here. So I'm not sure he would be in the market to buy this other than a neighbor assuming it was a Platinum. At this point, it's not available a lot. They don't have any right to develop, but I do think this is more of a quiet title issue than our issue. And I do agree with Mr. Simpson that I think there may be in the zoning ordinance a lapse between some of the appeal rights and some of the other things that are in here. But I think ultimately action can be filed in the circuit court. And if there is a boundary issue, I think a circuit court judge has the authority to have the parties enter into a new plat. And I also wanted to say if we'll go down a little bit further, Autumn, where it shows the encroachment. You see there it shows, you know, encroachment areas. I mean, nothing could be more clear that the the owner recognizes that there is a possible boundary issue or at least an encroachment issue by putting it on the plat that was recorded. So with all that being said, I just wanted to give kind of my comments. I plan on finding that we do not have jurisdiction for this matter. And that's going to be way I'm going to vote once we have a motion to proceed. Thank you, Autumn. I'm done talking and sharing. I'll open up to any more board members who want to give their two cents or put anything on the record. And I'm open to a motion at any time. I want to just clarify, and this may be more curiosity from Mr. Collier. You did mention they are selling the property, and it is the 444 West 3rd Street is a listed property. Is that currently being sold with each of these pieces that we're talking about, the 446 and the undetermined 447? Yes. You're on mute, sir. There you go. Okay. This particular track, which has a dual designation, but I'll just call it 446 West 3rd. Mr. Gross is correct. He read those are the restrictions on that plat. That's what it says. So it could be sold, but those restrictions don't go away. They're on the plat. Is it being listed with 444? Or we're looking at it? It may be. I don't know if it is or not. I mean, Raquel, I think in theory I could buy that lot if I so wanted to. How I'd get to it, what I would do with it. Those are two different, yeah. Currently, I don't think it has much value to anyone except for one of the owners that are adjacent to it. So I can't imagine who's interested other than maybe someone who needs to hire a better real estate attorney on the buyer side. And maybe a better real estate agent, too. Because it is listed for sale and there's no mention of. Yeah, that could be an issue with the Realtors Association and their ethical board on disclosures. But I'm putting it on the record. Everyone knows it's on the record. So whoever buys this comes in front of us to complain. We've already discussed that they can't do anything unless they get these approvals done. Any other questions or comments? Anyone want to make a motion at this time? We'll be done by four. Brandon, so if we think we don't have jurisdiction, are we making a motion? Well, Tracy, should we make a motion that we agree we don't have jurisdiction or should we just say? We don't have jurisdiction. I don't think that's necessarily, but we can't take an action on the application that's on the appeal itself, I don't think, other than to say we don't have jurisdiction. i mean if that's what if that's the motion i just think it would be based on it would still be based on um you know the reasons that are put forth in the staff by the staff because they cite to the ordinance and the that would be the same reasons you wouldn't have jurisdiction okay so So I wonder where to make it. See here. So would we move to, we wouldn't move to disapprove or would we move to disapprove based upon the lack of jurisdiction? I mean, I think you might want to say that you might want to change the disapproval to just that you're finding that you have no jurisdiction for the third party appeal. So we dismiss it? It said disapproval just paid dismissal. Yeah, you could do that. It would still be based on like a jurisdiction. Okay. Tracy Jones, I don't think that's an option in the zoning ordinance for the board to dismiss something. To dismiss something because they don't have jurisdiction? well i think you have to approve disapprove or something has to be withdrawn well you're basically the board would agree that they're upholding the division of planning certification of the class they're not we're not overturning it or no but i don't think if we don't have jurisdiction I don't think we can make an approval or disapproval. We essentially take no action as to whether the plat was done or on the appeal to that extent. I think the recommendation to not approve this appeal is because of lack of jurisdiction. You know, if you, and the reason, and then the reason this is happening is because this statute and this ordinance aren't written for this situation because this situation isn't supposed to happen really. So, um, you know, I think you're going to have to cite, you can call it you're disapproving it you can say you're whatever you do it needs to be based on a lack of jurisdiction to determine the appeal or otherwise and it needs to be if that's where you're going for the reasons that are stated in the report because those reasons that refer to the ordinance and the sections of the ordinance that talk about that. So, you know, I think that the action needs to reference a lack of jurisdiction because you're not making any decision on the merits. Well, let me do this, Tracy. Who on my board is planning on making a motion, such a motion? Joan? Okay, let's do this. Why doesn't Joan and the Tracys talk, we'll take a 10-minute recess, and that way I want whatever motion. Joan, do you have a question or you? Oh, I just think it's pretty simple. We just know that we do not have jurisdiction. Well, that's fine. I just want to make sure that wherever we're putting it, it's said the right way. So I guess Ms. Jones, if whoever makes a motion, you have an issue with it, then we could fix it during the motion period then. Okay. Ms. Jones is ready to rock and roll. She's not going to wait for me to recess. You know, I've been involved in real estate transactions for almost 50 years, and I've never had one like this. Last year, I had one similar to this, and it was easily determined by doing surveys, but never one as complicated as this. So this has been worth being on the Board of Justice just to hear this one. Anyway. Okay. So you're right. The ordinance doesn't say you have to make approval or disapproval of an administrative appeal. I just want to double check the bylaws. I think all we have to do is say that we don't have jurisdiction and cite the reasons the bylaws talk about the board shall make its decision after the close of the hearing on the appeal and shall note in its minutes the reasons for granting or denying the appeal and reveal the votes of each member. I did not hear what Tracy said. She was just referring to the bylaws, and it says you deny or approve the appeal. I think that if you make it clear that this is on jurisdictional grounds and the reasons why that that is adequate. okay Helen are you making the motion yes are you ready oh yes yes ma'am okay I move that we do not have jurisdiction to hear PLN-VLA-23, Hugh and Kim Bloomfield, for the reasons given by staff, the three reasons given by staff. Can we also note that it's you and Kim Bluefield and Linda Gosnell? Oh, okay, yes. It's on the revised staff report you received. The agenda was not updated to reflect that, unfortunately. Okay, including the motion, please, Linda Gosnell's name, along with Hugh and Bluefield. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right, so moved. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, all those in favor, please raise your hand. I note that it was unanimous and so the appeal has failed I'd like to tell Bruce, Wayne, and Linda I think this was you guys all did a good job and I guess you guys should all look forward to dealing with each other for quite a while in the circuit court and I hope everyone has a good day on that point so we'll go ahead and we'll dismiss you guys It's been interesting, and I really have enjoyed the discussion. Oh, yeah. I totally got my real estate nerd on. You both did a good job on your arguments. So that takes us to board items. Does anyone have any matters to bring to our attention today? Okay. Let's hear the staff. Do you guys have anything for us today? Perfect. Our next meeting will be March 8th, 2021 at 1.30 p.m. I believe, hopefully, knock on wood, that will be Mr. Glover's first official chair, chairing of the meeting on that one. And Chad will be back, and I can go back to this again to a rank-and-file board member again. So if everyone, I want everyone, like always, stay safe, wash your hands, keep your distance, and hopefully some of us probably already had the vaccine and those who haven't yet, you'll get it sometime soon. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.